Steven Hales wrote:
> Tracy Maurer wrote:
> > it's impossible to say just yet what the
> > outcome will be, but we can hazard some guesses:
> > 1. we'll become less and less resistant to disease
> > 2. we'll accumulate more and more genetic defects
>> Gosh, it sounds like to solve this horrible problem you would institute
> the eugenics of extreme century social darwinism.
Actually, it sounds like you would (your idea and all). Besides, do you find
it ironic that we would have to fiddle with our genes only to solve problems
that would not exist is we hadn't spent our time fiddling with other stuff and
instead let nature do it's thing?
> > we are also relying on fewer and fewer staple crops for the majority of
> > our food: take away wheat, rice or potatoes due to disease or mold or
> > insect/rodent predation and a sizable portion of the planet's human
> > population will starve.
>> We are probably better prepared to solve crop failures due to disease,
> mainly through genetic technology, than ever before in history
Now on to the mold and insect/rodent predation... DOH!
> > we're due for another ice age, too -
> > as a proportion of its history, earth is usually mostly covered with
> > ice. this relatively lengthy warm patch that allowed our entire species
> > to flourish is not typical of earth's weather cycle - it's a glitch.
> > to say our technology makes us immune to any of these factors is
> > nonsense. what technology? developed by whom? who pays for it? where do
> > the raw materials come from? who has access to it?
>> Problems, problems, problems...Human history has your answers.
Just so I'll know, Mr. Hale, where in human history do you find evidence that
technology has made us immune to weather? I can find plenty of examples to
the opposite, but can you help me with your 'answers'. If human history (the
time that led up to the present) has answers to all of our current problems,
then why aren't we using them?
> > we are just one more cog in a machine that replaces its cogs with new
> > ones pretty regularly. there is nothing whatsoever about us to suggest
> > we are particularly well adapted to lasting longer than we already have.
> > it's pretty cocky for a species less than 2 million years old to decalre
> > itself grand master of creation. many dinosaurs lasted 30 times that
> > long.
>> It's refreshing to see a budding neo-malthusian blathering their way
> toward the formation of a philosophy of doom.
>> World, behold, the next Malthus; stand aside Ehrlich, back away Meadows,
> our next author of millennialist nonsense has arrived, I present Tracy
Wow, personal insults, how clever.
I wouldn't expect you to make stuff up, but I can't explain your statements
Why can't anyone convince me that there are serious problems with society?
I'm open minded and all, but I can't find any good arguements...