10Likes
January 11th, 2014, 12:59 PM
It is human nature to explore and then exploit. We compete with each other to be happy. We have exploted nature and caused ourselves great harm. If we have solved one problem, we have created one. No one knows when people will be satisfied and happy. Future generations will suffer as we have not succeeded in convincing the people of their unrealistic expectations from themselves and from life. What future do we have?
Have we? Child & infant mortality has been hugely reduced. People are living longer and healthier lives. We can treat many more diseases and illnesses than ever before. We now have anaesthetics and antibiotics to make surgical interventions painless and safe.Originally Posted by parag29081973
Sounds like you are being overly pessimistic.
Even the scientists have started lying. They claim to discover God particle. These people want to prove that God does'nt exist with their 'God Particle" theory. This is a dangerous trend. Sorry guys I am a rationalist not an atheist. The future is dark with these people at the helm of affairs.
Evidence required.
Maybe you should go away and learn what the "god particle" really is.They claim to discover God particle.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with god and was never claimed to.
You're also posting on something of which you're apparently highly ignorant.Sorry guys I am a rationalist not an atheist.
How rational is that?
What are you rambling on about? Not trying to be rude, but are you submitting yourself as a case example for study in this subforum?
This is a science forum and presents a great opportunity to learn what scientists do, what the latest research results are. Why not ask some questions to fill the (rather obvious) gaps in your knowledge?
The stupid "God Particle" name has nothing to do with God. It really has nothing to do with the particle either. It was just the (stupid) title of a book. The author wanted to call the book "The Goddam Particle" to highlight the difficult of observing the Higgs boson. The (stupid) publishers thought (stupid) people might be offended by the title and so (stupidly) dropped the "damn" part of it. And we are left with stupid journalists repeating the stupid name.
Happy now?
Sorry guys. My mistake. Got to read the right stuff. Thanx for letting me know the facts.
That's true we are able of so much, and can do so much. We can even treat cancer with little to no side-effects. But we are also cutting a load of trees in tropical rainforests, wich literally the longs of the earth. We pollute with all the cars. We are getting over populated and so on. Don't take me wrong i DO see the good but i also see the bad.Have we? Child & infant mortality has been hugely reduced. People are living longer and healthier lives. We can treat many more diseases and illnesses than ever before. We now have anaesthetics and antibiotics to make surgical interventions painless and safe.
Sounds like you are being overly pessimistic.
When is this world going to settle in a good rhythm. I know there will be conflicts in future but not the kind which cannot resolved with discussion. When are nations going to look inward and solve problems instead of blaming their nieghbours, competitors and the ilk. Change from within is necessary.
As long as there are weapons dealers, greed and corruption nothing will change I feel. "Only when the power of love overcomes the love of power will the world ever see peace" Jimi Hendrix.
I think people are becoming more and more aware of the issue of sustainability in things like the environment, agriculture and economics. In some respects it probably goes against the grain - a million years of small numbers of humans inhabiting a huge planet with unlimited resources, and at the same time, having their populations decimated by epidemics and accidents.
At the same time, humans may have some experience with sustainability. In a book called "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches" the author proposes that the reason some cultures don't eat beef or pork has less to do with disease (like trichinosis) and more to do with the fact that rasing those animals for food would not have been sustainable in those geographical areas. I think his reasoning was that pigs would essentially compete for the same kind of food as humans, and bovines are also work animals - you need a fairly lush climate to raise these animals for food. Its an interesting idea that cultural practices might be "selected for" if they aid survival.
Although some people feel that certain human behaviors are very hard wired and almost unchangable - like war and aggression - I'm impressed how much attitudes and practices have changed. Slavery went from being seen as positive - to a normal, socially sanctioned practice -to a necessary evil -to morally unacceptable and illegal. Likewise war is no longer seen in most societies as "glorious" or a noble endeavor that fosters man's character and courage. We seem to be in the "sometimes acceptable/ necessary evil" stage regarding war. Defensive military action is still condoned, but overt aggressors are held in contempt. I don't think that was true really until fairly recently. Of course I'm generalizing - there are still groups that view war as good and probably other societies that deny or suppress their true motives when it comes to military intervention.
Last edited by DianeG; January 25th, 2014 at 01:00 PM.
While I enjoy many forms of competition and enjoy winning, I gain more happiness from helping people progress in their careers and in gaining knowledge and understanding. I do not believe I am exceptional in this regard. What you say is true, but it needs to be balanced by considering our altruistic and cooperative tendencies.
Each and everyone of us that is fortunate enough to live in the developed world has considerable opportunity to participate in change by the simple choices that we make every day. What you spend your time and money on and where you place that energy and money has a downstream effect.
Capitalism is a remarkably responsive system in that it tends to follow the money, your money.
Don't settle for the easy options, determine your own and the system will eventually follow. As example, organic bananas now go on sale for less than conventionally grown ones and the regular price is almost on par. Why? The number of customers who want organic produce is on the increase and the demand for this product is driving the market change. I have monitored this simple indicator for 8 1/2 years and the shift was evident about 2 years ago.
The corporate world can't stand to lose 'market share'.
Learn to vote with your dollars and invest your personal time in the things that matter to you. Many smaller changes eventually lead to greater ones. Today's communication technology has enabled global awareness and participation on previously unimaginable levels.
Here the biggest issue recently is eggs from caged versus free range hens. The people pushing to maintain their cages because "consumers care more about price than about animal welfare" are now running like mad to catch up because they've fallen behind what the market is telling them.The corporate world can't stand to lose 'market share'.
I don't know much about economics, but as long as politicians and policy makers believe that the only measure of a healthy economy is its economic growth - an increasing number of people consuming an increasing number of goods and services -the economy will resemble a pyramid scam. I don't know why a healthy state of equilibrium is so inconceivable or unobtainable. Is it impossible to have a strong economy with low unemployment and a productivity level that's sufficient to meet our needs? Why does it seem as though we have to keep paddling faster and faster just to stay a float?
Maybe it is time for a co-operative community to model it's own economy on such a set of principles? I believe that it has been tried in the past, communal living.
The problem is human nature.
We do not all share the same ideologies or work ethics and before long, there is discord in paradise.
The model of capitalism rewards competition when you are successful but obviously not every one can be successful.
Co-operation and competition are both viable strategies, depending on your personality. Growth cannot continue indefinitely and it remains interesting to contemplate what will transpire when this model is no longer sustainable. My own present strategy is to re-evaluate all things in my possession and determine their potential utility going forward. I am lightening my load, both physically and metaphorically speaking, so that I may be more agile in responding to whatever change in direction the economy should take. I am quite capable of doing much more with far less if circumstances should require. My grandparents survived the depression of the 1930's and they passed on valuable lessons and coping strategies.
I think cooperation and competition can co-exist, and for the most part they already do. I heard a story on the CBC about this guy who tried to build an exact copy of a modern toaster completely from scratch, including mining and smelting the metal, and creating the plastic parts, assembling it etc. It cost him $5,000 and burst into flames on the second trial. He was trying show how completely dependent we are on the skills and resources of thousands of people to create even the simplist thing.
LOL, he was doing it wrong!
| « Why does a song sound bad if you listen to it too much? | Can This Quiz Predict Your Politics? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
