When we run out of land, do you think it would be feasible to transport enough people to another planet to make a difference? Populating other planets may benefit the human race as a whole, but like it or not, you and I are going to be staying here. So far as overpopulation affects us, better to spend money on family planning.
There is a web site that advocates racial hatred. It justifies rape of a 13-year-old, saying "she really want it"; it justifies a multiple murder, saying, "it's what they deserve because of their race and gender".
If anyone viewing this site is even slightly influenced do some of the things advocated here, tangible harm would result. Beyond that, I think advocating sexual violence and racial hatred is harmful to society, adding fuel to an already simmering fire.
An advocate said, "it's humor". To paraphrase the justice (again) "I can't say what pornography is, but I know it when I see it." This material isn't funny. They wouldn't think it was funny either if the racial references were switched.
If there is nothing degrading about a video, then I personally wouldn't consider it pornography. As you say, "people do it all the time." No harm, no foul.
That doesn't mean there isn't some real crap out there. If you disagree then you will be comforted to know that I have absolutely no authority to ban anything --just expressing my opinion.
Outsourcing and free trade 'level the playing field': the end result will be that workers anywhere in the world will be paid similar wages. Our standard of living will be lowered to raise the standard of living in the poorest countries.
At some level this may be "fair" but it isn't playing by the rules we've been following thus far.
In the meantime, big business will be enriched beyond reason, just as oil companies continue to enjoy record profits.
It costs 16 cents per mile if gas costs $4 per gallon and your car gets 25 miles per gallon. If you drive 60 miles round-trip to work, that's $9.60 per day, that's $48 per day, $192 per week.
I'm more aware of the price of gas, but can't say I've cut back on driving yet. If the price goes to $8/gal. I guess we'd only drive to work and for essential services.
Their show is very entertaining. But lately Penn has been doing a lot of 'preaching' off-stage. He has a right to his opinions, of course. But speaking out on many topics makes him sound egotistical and makes me less likely to pay to see their show. Penn should take a lesson from Teller about talking too much.
A little more than a century ago, human flight seemed impossible. Now our big concern is what we'll have to pay for carry-on luggage.
The colonization of Mars is a matter of 'when', not 'if'. It is inevitable that humankind will make progress toward interplanetary travel. A colony on Mars is a necessary step toward this goal.
Some advocate a colony on Mars 1) as 'insurance' against a cosmic calamity on earth (such as a comet impact) or 2) as a 'stepping stone' for space exploration.
Perhaps astronauts will visit Mars temporarily, as they now visit the International Space Station. But a permanent, self-sustaining colony would require a tremendous amount of infrastructure: farming, medical facilities, educational facilities, factories, housing, power generation, etc. And due to fuel requirements and the hazards of traversing Mars' gravity and atmosphere, construction material will have to come from Martian soil.
In the event of a catastrophe on Earth, at best only a few people could be evacuated to such a colony.
For humans, round-trip interplanetary travel beyond Mars isn't feasible with current technology, so a 'stepping stone' isn't needed.
A permanent colony on Mars would be prohibitively expensive. For the present it is more practical to invest in improvements on Earth.
You need to be careful about the words you choose.
Whether or not this Jesus is the "Messiah" or "Christ" is a matter of faith. Jews don't accept that Jesus was the messiah. Christians affirm Jesus is the messiah (but they redefine "messiah" to fit Jesus' ministry). To an atheist the whole discussion is nonsense.
There are references that confirm that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person but very little is known about him. Read the last chapter of Schweitzer's "The Quest of the Historical Jesus".
A debate is only worthwhile if both parties have reasonably well-developed thinking skills.
Most people, however, aren't in this category. Advertisers aim their commercials at persons with elementary-school thinking ability for a practical reason. Most citizens are in this category.
CreateDebate says it is a "social tool based entirely on participation and democracy". It follows that most debate will be conducted at a low level.
For a debate to be useful, the debaters need to be knowledgeable. A doctor knows more about health issues than an auto mechanic. The mechanic knows more about car maintenance than a doctor. If there is a debate about religion, the principle debaters should have studied religions and know more than the man-in-the-street. Unfortunately, most debates are between people with strong opinions but little knowledge.
You, the reader, are of course the exception! :-)
The State has always given special status to groups of citizens where legislators believe it is in the State's interest. All citizens do not always get equal treatment.
The State has a vested interest in procreation, to assure that the children are provided a minimum standard of health care, education, and parenting. Therefore the State has taken upon itself the authority to regulate who can and who cannot have the legal status of 'marriage'. You can't marry your sister. You can't be married to more than one person. Etc., etc. (To be sure, the State sometimes does a poor job of crafting laws, for instance, tax laws that create a "marriage penalty" are counter-productive.)
I'm not aware of a benefit to the State from same-gender relationships. Same-gender relationships should not be illegal (this is pointless and impossible to enforce uniformly) but they shouldn't be given the special status of "marriage" either.
Where does "do whatever it takes to win" lead?
Performance-enhancing drugs, stealing other teams' signals -- been there, done that. Where do we draw the line? Shall we allow athletes to carry weapons and shoot opponents if they are about to score?
There must be some mutually-accepted rules for athletes, otherwise the game disintegrates into chaos and there isn't anything left to be champion of.
Charging for luggage is one way for the airline to recover fuel price increases. To be fair, however, they ought to weigh PASSENGERS and luggage, and charge everyone the same rate per pound! Otherwise, I'm going to wear a week's worth of clothes onto the plane. :-)
Whose brain are we talking about? George Bush? Albert Einstein? Britney Spears? The intelligence of the human brain varies considerably from unit to unit.
In terms of following rules and performing calculations, artificial intelligence exceeds the performance of human brains now.
On the other hand, the human capacity to come to completely illogical conclusions and behave in a completely "off the wall" fashion will be unmatched at least until Microsoft releases its next operating system.
Even if talking on a phone only minimally impairs driving capacities, you know you shouldn't do it.
Let's say you can drive most of the time using only 50% of your attention, so you have 50% left to use the phone, listen to the radio, drink coffee and apply makeup or check your hair in the rear-view mirror. Still, a mistake by another driver can suddenly get you into a situation that 1) requires all your attention and 2) at interstate speeds can cause your untimely death.
As you were being put into an ambulance, even if the accident wasn't your fault, wouldn't you regret not giving your full attention to driving?
