Text 944, 88 rader
Skriven 2006-05-29 23:30:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1390.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Paul Harper to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <ipmn72lpsihhej25lks0u61mf02umkop6f@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <4doo3mF1aipnpU1@individual.net>
On Mon, 29 May 2006 21:30:35 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
<jt@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message 
>news:lj1m72ddd0ptmg160fpodnunkrh3emt9sj@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 29 May 2006 14:32:47 +0000 (UTC), "Carl"
>> <cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think that you have to "evolve" beyond religion, politics, etc.
>>
>> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I see exactly that as
>> fundamental and crucial to the survival of us as a species and all
>> those other species on the planet we will take with us during our exit
>> fall.
>
>I'm with Carl.  There will always be differences between people.

I have no problem with that, but the key is the elimination of
entrenched self-interest. It's quite possible to be different,
individual, "special", however you want to phrase it, and still have
the interest of the whole as more important that self-interest.

>The trick is being adult enough about them to not get hot and bothered by 
>them.

Hot and bothered isn't the issue. It's the effect of the differences,
the vigour with which people defend them and the willingness they
demonstrate to put others specifically and society in general down in
defense of them.

>Eliminate one kind of difference something else will take its place.  Look 
>at prejudice's twin, anxiety.  We in the First World do not need to worry 
>about getting ourselves fed, so we have evolved a more advanced and 
>sophisticated set of mortality fears.

Which kind of illustrates my point. Wouldn't it be better, having
achieved such a high level of self-sufficiency (to the extent of quite
criminal waste) if we devoted some of our energies enabling the rest
of the planet to achieve a similar high standard of living?

That we do not do that is nothing short of shameful.

>30 years ago, people were fretting about the imminent onset of the next ice 
>age.
>
>Right now, the truth is that we simply don't know.  Our understanding of 
>global climate is still too limited, allowing politics to insert itself into 
>science.

Not quite sure where that came from. Which eminent scientist (or even
respect television presenter like Sir David Attenborough) did you
think was unsure about climate change?!  The only people who profess
to be unsure about this are the oil companies and their political
lapdogs. It is fact. We have to deal with it or live with the
consequences.

I'll be dead by the time it goes critical, but my kids won't, and I'm
not happy about that. 

That this whole issue has turned into another political game of denial
until it's too late is, like the issue above, shameful.

>Historically, people create gods to fill the gaps labelled "we don't know." 
>That's worth remembering when listening to debate on global warming.

Were the "we don't know" bit true, you'd be right. But we *do* know.

>Nature needs intelligent tweaking from time to time.  Unfortunately we give 
>into the temptation of micromanaging.

No, it doesn't. It needs understanding, yes, but nature is going to be
there, slowly recovering, long after we've wiped ourselves off the
planet. Nature always wins in the end. The only variable is how long
we fight against it before we lose.

Not long to go now.

Paul.
        
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)