Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (13630)	5/17/2001 8:38:50 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Science does not drive anyone to kill anyone else. It merely provides tools. Humans have used those tools to do great good. They have also used those tools to do great harm. That doesn't say anything about those tools. It says a good deal about people. Well said. Whether science should say anything about the uses to which its results are put... well, that's an open question. While there's no consensus among people generally, and scientists - and their backers/funders - in particular, I'd be loath to block any useful or interesting research from dislike of its content or possible conclusion. At the very least, there are the grounds that some other less scrupulous/ethical/blinkered company or country would likely continue, and have unhampered use of whatever it might find: obvious examples include research into bioweapons, or indeed the atomic bomb. IMO, one main reason more people die in modern wars is that (thanks to scientific/medical advance) there are so many more people... plus, back when people were scarce and land plentiful you didn't want to kill the labour force of the land you wanted - now, you want the land and not the people. The ancients were happy to massacre each other when they had the numbers, and use singularly unpleasant methods of warfare - for example, catapaulting in rotten animal corpses into besieged cities to spread cholera and (they hoped) plague - they just weren't so effective. BTW, I don't rank the God of the Bible with Odin or Zeus; the latter are far more interesting, and indeed believable (except perhaps for the birthing methods) <g>

To: Dayuhan who wrote (13630)	5/17/2001 9:05:01 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I place Jesus and God in the same category as Zeus, Odin, and Ra, but I have no noticeable tendency to slip into depravity. You'd think by now this point would no longer need to be made, but apparently it is, so I'll add my reinforcement. Perhaps a perceived relationship with Jesus and/or God stands between some people and depravity, but that is only germane for those predisposed to depravity. For the rest of us, it would be quite irrelevant. Karen

To: Dayuhan who wrote (13630)	5/17/2001 9:14:19 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

The earth is not a perfect sphere according to all scientific data

To: Dayuhan who wrote (13630)	5/17/2001 4:24:16 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 82486

Steven, See my response to Solon. It covers some of the same ground. To answer your question on government: No. Hitler had the consent of his people to govern Germany. Was the result progress? How about Stalin? There has to be a standard to define good and evil, don't you think? Our own government in the USA has and continues to enact wars on peoples outside our reasoned purview, IMO. What war have we ever won where both sides had good benefit? Why then would you think a policy of past failures will bring future success? What makes western "reasoned thought" the accepted standard. Our missiles, our bombs, our economic advantage. Hardly what I would call progress. << Your comments on atrocities reveal a basic lack of understanding. Science and religion have fundamentally different roles here. Religion has actively provoked people to go out and slaughter each other (though it may be reasonably argued that in the absence of religion people would have found other reasons). Science does not drive anyone to kill anyone else. It merely provides tools. Humans have used those tools to do great good. They have also used those tools to do great harm. That doesn't say anything about those tools. It says a good deal about people.>> Science merely provides the tools! What benefit does an atomic bomb have other than utter destruction? Yes, war, poverty, slavery, etc. all say a good deal about people. We have finally agreed on the source of the problem. Now, how do you suggest we fix it? Science has failed, religion has failed. Yet, you think I am "odd" for my faith in Jesus, which I testify keeps me from doing harm to my fellow man. I think it's a good start, for me. I see "reasonable" people buying lots for $10,000,000 here in Hawaii and building $15,000,000 homes. Don't they just need a basic shelter? Wouldn't a 3 bed/2 bath 1,200' modest dwelling be sufficient? Especially when you consider the good that extra $24,700,000 could be doing elsewhere in the world. Wouldn't a reasonable view be that we, as US citizens leading the world into the righteous, reasoned future only use the bare minimum to survive and lead a less consumptive life? Is this progress to spend billions, trillions, on useless pleasures while most of the world wallows in poverty? I asked Solon, "Where is your utopia?" I ask you the same. Examine yourself. Do you take a gas guzzling car down to the store when you could just has easily walked? Do you waste money watching movies that cost millions rather than give charity to third world poverty causes? Could you have bought a second hand car or did it have to be new? Are there clothes in the home than never did get worn out, just aren't worn anymore? Isn't the United States the most hypocritical nation in the history of the world? Reason says so, IMhumbleO. Yes, our lifestyles in the USA do speak volumes about people, don't they?