Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-15-2014 8:51 PM
99 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Upcoming Birthdays: Spiritual Anarchist
Post Volume:
Total: 736,045 Year: 21,886/28,606 Month: 973/1,410 Week: 175/524 Day: 87/88 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   What's The Best Solution For Humanity?
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 301 (631209)
08-31-2011 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IamJoseph
08-30-2011 7:39 PM


The Best Solution
Perhaps the best solution is group size somewhere between tribalism and all of humanity erring on the smaller size.

Tribalism, or in modern society, gangs, are groups between perhaps 200 and 1000 individuals. That's too small for any practical large-scale solutions.

Ca. 7 billion people encompassing many different philosophies and regions is far too large for any practical solutions.

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

In other words, what does someone in India or China have to say about the way we do things in my county? Or state?

Nothing.

Let's keep our mistakes as local as possible, so there is some hope of correcting them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 7:39 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 12:10 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 301 (631216)
08-31-2011 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 12:06 AM


Re: To quote Bender: We're boned
I cannot google any good definition for "magestic laws," or "majestic laws" either.

Could you please explain what you mean by that.

My initial google searching suggests that it is a very non-standard term.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 12:06 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 3:30 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 301 (634583)
09-22-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ProtoTypical
09-22-2011 9:17 PM


Re: What's the problem
Good questions. Here is a non-math response.

Exponential growth would have us filling the universe in just a few thousand years. But the same growth rate would have bacteria taking over the entire earth in weeks or months and the universe not long after. Neither is going to happen because you just can't sustain that growth rate. Also, getting to the rest of the universe is somewhat of a problem at the moment. I don't see us colonizing adjacent stars any time soon.

The greatest threat I see at the moment is fundamentalism. We need to get off this rock and any resources spent fighting amongst ourselves are just wasted. All fundamentalism, but particularly Muslim fundamentalism, is diametrically opposed to scientific advance and the development of cultures that can expand into space.

Rationality is the best solution for humanity, but too often folks who are entirely rational in all other aspects of their lives fall prey to the most irrational forms of woo and defend that woo at all costs. I suggest that we need to get over that, and as soon as possible.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-22-2011 9:17 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-22-2011 10:09 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 301 (634590)
09-22-2011 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ProtoTypical
09-22-2011 10:09 PM


Re: What's the problem
Also, getting to the rest of the universe is somewhat of a problem at the moment.

What? All we have to do to maintain our present growth rate and populate the universe in 3000 yrs is to exceed C by some 4,666,666 times.

Well, there is this little hurdle there--getting to the next star system is a bit beyond our capabilities at the moment. And busting that silly light-speed barrier may take a while as well. It would be handy to have solutions to those problems.

I don't doubt that we'll figure a way if given half a chance, but don't wait up.

The greatest threat I see at the moment is fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is a problem but I don't think that it will wipe us clean off the map.

I agree. But it doesn't have to wipe us off the map. All it has to do is sap much-needed resources and we're stuck on this rock. Surely you've heard something like "Why are we launching money into space when we have such poverty here. Let's fix that first." This is wrong in so many ways that I won't bother to deal with them at all. You either see it or you don't

There was a time not that long ago when we could go to the moon. Before that, just about 50 years ago, we could put astronauts into orbit. At the moment we can't do either!

Color me pessimistic.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-22-2011 10:09 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 92 of 301 (634859)
09-24-2011 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Modulous
09-24-2011 12:31 PM


Re: Food For Thought
If I remember correctly, acceleration at 1 g will near light speed in about a year.

The actual doing of this is left as an exercise for the student.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2011 12:31 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 1:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 111 of 301 (634882)
09-24-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 2:22 PM


Re: Food For Thought
Going to the moon in 1969 was great, but for today's knowledge it is not. Reaching another solar system in 200 years will be relatively normal. Knowledge is a compoinding factor - everytime a new discovery is made, millions of ancililary new finds come to us for nought.

We do not currently have the ability to go to the moon, nor even to put astronauts into orbit.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 2:22 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 2:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 115 by fearandloathing, posted 09-24-2011 2:41 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 114 of 301 (634885)
09-24-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Huntard
09-24-2011 2:36 PM


Re: Food For Thought
$100 placed at 7 percent interest compounded quarterly for 200 years will increase to more than $100,000,000 by which time it will be worth nothing.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1974


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 2:36 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 120 of 301 (634893)
09-24-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by fearandloathing
09-24-2011 2:41 PM


Re: Food For Thought
We as humans can still put men in orbit. sorry, just being picky.

Because of two recent crashes the Russians have discontinued manned launches. Just temporary, most likely, but there you have it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by fearandloathing, posted 09-24-2011 2:41 PM fearandloathing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by fearandloathing, posted 09-24-2011 3:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 124 by fearandloathing, posted 09-24-2011 3:53 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 160 of 301 (635363)
09-28-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by IamJoseph
09-28-2011 9:45 PM


Re: time for a bit of intellectual honesty
Your problem is I understand the situation very well and you are in denial. There is no alternative to the Genesis provision from any POV. It is not humanity's last hope - it is the only hope for survival.

Genesis is an ancient tribal myth, with no necessary application to modern problems.

But belief is better than artificial respiration at keeping ancient myths alive. You seem to exemplify this.

Genesis has been disproved in so many ways, but facts don't affect belief, do they? Facts can just be ignored or misrepresented--anything to keep belief alive, eh?

You can believe what you want. You can rub blue mud in your naval on alternate Thursdays.

But unless you have some real evidence, don't expect others to fall for that stuff.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by IamJoseph, posted 09-28-2011 9:45 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 09-28-2011 10:09 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 167 of 301 (635373)
09-28-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by IamJoseph
09-28-2011 10:31 PM


Re: time for a bit of intellectual honesty
If someone says Genesis is myth, they have to give an example. I can list more than 50,000 stats and prove beyond any doubt there is no writings with more proof of historical credibility in existence any place.

Please do so, in a new thread.

But don't forget to lead with talking snakes, young earth, global flood ca. 4,350 years ago, and that silly tower.

And don't worry about any other writings. Your claim is about Genesis so that's what you have to defend.

See you on your new thread, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by IamJoseph, posted 09-28-2011 10:31 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by IamJoseph, posted 09-28-2011 11:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 225 of 301 (635859)
10-02-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by IamJoseph
10-02-2011 7:41 AM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
I do not think 'speech' is older than 6000 years because of the vacuum of any evidence, and because of the indication that languages began simultainiously throughout the planet, as well numerous base blocks of languages emerging at one time.

Homo habilis dates to between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago and the brain shape shows evidence that some speech had developed.

Homo erectus lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago and definitely had speech.

As for all languages beginning simultaneously, the linguists would dispute that.

We do not even have a 'name' before 6000, the pivotal mark of speech...

Could this be a matter of no written records prior to 6,000 years ago rather than the lack of speech?

You might consider this possibility, as the evidence of brain development and skeletal anatomy definitely places speech prior to 6,000 years ago.

Perhaps your beliefs are wrong, and could be helped by looking at facts?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by IamJoseph, posted 10-02-2011 7:41 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 10-02-2011 2:39 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 230 by Panda, posted 10-02-2011 3:42 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 250 of 301 (636061)
10-03-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 8:29 PM


On dating
The traditional religious view on the origin of the Torah is that it was written by Moses between 1446 BC and 1406 BC. While this view is still held by conservative Christians and Jews, modern scholars argue that the whole of the Torah was composed in the mid-1st millennium BC as a "prequel" to the prophetic books (books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

The first known examples of writing may have been unearthed at an archaeological dig in Pakistan.

So-called 'plant-like' and 'trident-shaped' markings have been found on fragments of pottery dating back 5500 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm

So, you're 2,000 or more years off.

Care to try again, sticking to facts this time?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 8:29 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 8:59 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 258 of 301 (636076)
10-03-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 8:59 PM


Re: On dating
First millinium BCE, 3000 years old, is older than Gilgamesh. Of note most of the Hebrew books are dated, according to its narratives, as after 3000 [except for the book of Joshua].

Epic of Gilgamesh

The earliest Sumerian poems are now considered to be distinct stories rather than constituting a single epic.[2]:45 They date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BC).[2]:41-42 The earliest Akkadian versions are dated to the early second millennium [2]:45, most likely in the eighteenth or seventeenth century BC, when one or more authors used existing literary material to form the epic of Gilgamesh.[3] The "standard" Akkadian version, consisting of 12 tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

Don't you ever tire of being proven wrong?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 8:59 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 9:36 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 261 of 301 (636083)
10-03-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 9:36 PM


Re: On dating
There is no issue with non-alphabeticals being older than the Hebrew.

"Alphabeticals" is a poor standard. "Phonetic alphabet" is far more accurate.

I suspect you are only using alphabeticals because that's what your favorite writings are in.

There are a lot of writings far earlier. What you are doing is akin to studying the history of cars and declaring that the V-8 was the most important event, and that nothing before that counted for squat.

Nice work if you can get it.

The Gilgamesh was a series of additions - its flood story is not older than the Hebrew but an addition from it. I am not wrong and your links do not prove me wrong - they affirm my premise.

Scholars propose that the flood story was written around 550450 BC as a reworking of the ancient Mesopotamian myth of the flood-hero Utnapishtim. For the ancient author or authors, the purpose of the story was theological, elevating Hebrew monotheism over Babylonian polytheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

Please don't try to make a living as a scientist. There you have to be right, all the time, or nearly so. There is no credit for being wrong.

I suppose you can get away with being wrong when you're a religious apologist, but that doesn't cut it in the real world where you need evidence to back up your claims


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 9:36 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 10:11 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4697
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 266 of 301 (636094)
10-03-2011 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 10:11 PM


Re: On dating
I don't except the hebrew as derivitive of the phoenecian, and you are only quoting from links which you have not properly investigated. It is the reason you cannot produce an older phoenecian or any other alphabetical book.

Your insistence on an alphabetical book does you no credit.

As per my analogy above, that is like writing the history of automobiles as starting with the V-8 and ignoring all that went before.

But I guess when you're doing apologetics you don't need to rely on evidence, just rhetoric, eh?

Your posts are certainly showing that to be the case.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 10:11 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 12:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014