<To be valid, an opinion either needs to be so personal as to be of no consequence to anyone else or backed up by a reasonable rationale. IMO. People are entitled to even invalid opinions, but entitlement and validity are two different things.>
The apparently harmless nature of your argument bears the seeds of its own absolute destruction (relatively speaking, eh). If you look back at many beliefs and opinions of 100 years ago, there were many of these beliefs and opinions which were well regarded, generally considered to be correct, and patently obvious to any casual observer.
The fact is the validity of many beliefs and opinions can ONLY be tested with time.
For example, I belief the Earth would be a better place with less than half of its current population or less living at a standard of living equivalent to that of the U.S. currently and with no widespread disparity with regard to race or nation of origin. This utopian ideal could only be tested and thereby disproven with considerable time. To be honest, it would be 150 years to engineer even in approximation and then 150 years to deploy.
A naturally occurring plateauing is the most stable condition known to our planet (like Dimetrodon in the Permian. ) Evolution and explosive change isn't the most stable or safest way to run the planet. However, if you love change and conflict, it is a great way to run things. One has to realize that humans are newcomers and that as an evolutionary experiment we are but a flash in the pan. The longest lived creatures (outliving us by factors of 10,000 or more) whose tenure is well-documented did not thrive with explosive change.
Now, if our goal is to facilitate the next evolutionary wave, we shouldn't change our course a bit. We have little guarantee though, based upon historical precedent, that we shall emerge the winners. |
