CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think the two possible endpoints for humanity are singularity and self-destruction. I'm pretty sure the former is a lot more likely. I mean, humanity is stupid, but not that stupid. I'd put the odds at 90% singularity, 10% self-destruction.
Just cause the leaders of the nations involved in the so-called 'Cold War' didn't decide to kill each other, doesn't mean that the future 'World Leaders' won't.
It provides us with a datapoint. There's no way to say for sure that people won't kill each other. But the more times a person walks away from a precipice instead of jumping, the more likely it is they are not suicidal.
It counts for very little in the long run, to quote both Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking "Is any intelligent civilization doomed to destroy itself soon after it discovers that E = MC²?" Just because we have survived the first 60-odd years since the first A-Bomb was succesfuly detonated means very little in the larger scheme of thing.
We will live long enough to colonize the moon, Mars and some asteroids. We have already taken steps to help our planet. Humans are incredibly adaptive and innovative. It's how we got from the stone age to where we are now.
If we keep going on the suicidal path we are on, and keep using up natural resources, the odds are for societal collapse, however, if we change before we go past the point of inevitable decline, we will prosper, I'm rooting for the latter.
I'll assume your intended question was "can humanity survive it's intellectual and moral infancy regarding technology?". Your "populating the stars (planets)" is already possible (Imagine a planet-hopping biodome equipped with mining resources [or cows ;] to procure fuel). The idea of an end-goal as populating the stars is a rediculous notion given that humans are retarded at peacekeeping (politics and military power-mongering will always take precedent) so a stellar humanity would look very similar to the one you see before you today. Along the line of maturation towards this end-goal, you picture a gradual increase in ethical living untill we one day live happily ever after colonizing planets. The fun part is that (as with all institutions) the scientific body has become more of a cost-cutting, efficiency expert having, paycheque idolizing, name-whoring, political institution concerned with operation costs (the only significant technological breakthroughs in the last half-century have been military [military application], and pharmaceutical [medical], [Anyone? Thought so.]). With the amount of resources afforded to the military industrial complex, you (I refuse to associate with the masses) have fucked yourselves and ensured that the technology you so intellectually account for, stays out of even your own hands, and inside classified documents ("It's ok though, cuz are troops are at risk").
There is a solution, but it involves unearthing what your money is being spent on, taking back control of your scientists, and holding all parties involved accountable.
Answer this, and you'll have your space parade.
Interesting little tidbit.
Cancer research has received millions and billions of dollars over the last 40 years (first one, then the other). All that science has shown for it thus far is chemotherapy. How many more billions of dollars (maybe close to a trillion now) need to be spent on it (considering this economy as well) before everyone realizes they're flogging a dead horse. I believe the cure exists already, but even if it doesn't, when does the income stop? All the rallies, all the parades, pins, foundations, races, teary commercials, stickers etc... This elusive cure for cancer is it's own institution and in 40 years it hasn't delivered a damn thing.
The cure for cancer is health education, funny that this takes a backseat to medication. Right now if the "cure" was found, a million people around the world would be out of work, you don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand why powerful people wouldn't want a cure.
I believe the human race ought to go back to a pre-industrial society. It'd surely solve most of the problems afflicting humanity today. Obesity would be a rarity, seeing as how people would walk much more frequently; we'd have farm animals rather than polluting machinery. Weapons of Mass Destruction would disappear along with all the other monstrosities (er, conveniences) which science has brought us. Homicide and other crime rates would decrease as the urban population dispersed to rural areas; AIDS and other 'epidemics' would reduce along human interaction. Divorce rates would decline as spouses became dependent on each other, which one would argue is good for society, especially children.
As obesity rates decreased, and healthier foods consumed, illnesses would become less common and, while lifespans may decrease slightly with the lack of medication, they would be healthier and more worthwhile.
While war may still occur, it would do so on a much lower scale.
I would argue that it would have a worse effect on society than high divorce rates.
Of course not - with nuclear holocaust behind every corner.
That world view is fifty years outdated.
It could just as easily happen today - of course, the government would not then be responsible.
As with Bird and Swine flu? "World in panic, two dead!".
The effects of all of Germany's pre-Industrial wars were not nearly as devastating as that of WWII.
That was because of the number of nations involved. In a reverted society with lower populations, wars using more primitive weapons but the same nations would be proportionately just as devastating, if not more so, without machines to rebuild infrastructure. Millions would die from famine, as they did in Russia during WWII, but without machines with which to harvest crops, there would be no hope of meeting demand. Reverting to pre-industrial society would end our society.
Effective? Yes - but effective at what? What do medicines do, besides masking symptoms?
That world view is fifty years outdated.
Then whatever is out nowadays must be fifty times worse!
As with Bird and Swine flu? "World in panic, two dead!"
Shows us just how stupid this world has become.
Reverting to pre-industrial society would end our society.
Precisely! It would end our society and at the same time give us a far more utopic society in its place. If you believe that it would end humanity - as one may construe from your last sentence - than perhaps one ought to ponder just how we survived the last millions of years.
Effective? Yes - but effective at what? What do medicines do, besides masking symptoms?
Well, they can cure and prevent disease, for example.
Then whatever is out nowadays must be fifty times worse!
The world's stockpile of nuclear weapons has decreased since the cold war.
Shows us just how stupid this world has become.
I agree. But how would a stupid world survive without technology?
Precisely! It would end our society and at the same time give us a far more utopic society in its place.
Feudalism is far from utopic.
If you believe that it would end humanity - as one may construe from your last sentence - than perhaps one ought to ponder just how we survived the last millions of years.
Back then we didn't have a population that can only be fed by utilising technology. Feeding 7 billion people without machinery is impossible. Everybody would either starve or be killed in the conflicts that would inevitably occur. If not everybody then at least 90% of the world would die. In all probability, most of the survivors would have little or no knowledge of pre-industrial farming, leading to more deaths Even if the worst case scenario were not to occur, humanity inexorably moves towards industrialisation. An endless cycle of advancement and reversion would be inevitable.
If you consider either of the above to be acceptable, then I must ask for what reason you consider reversion to be necessary? It clearly isn't through concern for people.
Well, they can cure and prevent disease, for example.
And people get addicted to them, which may further a government plot to control it's citizens.
The world's stockpile of nuclear weapons has decreased since the cold war.
Yet, they are still extraordinarily powerful.
I agree. But how would a stupid world survive without technology?
How did they survive before technology?
Feudalism is far from utopic.
Utopia is in the eye of the Beholder.
If you consider either of the above to be acceptable, then I must ask for what reason you consider reversion to be necessary? It clearly isn't through concern for people.
In the last two hundred years, the world had declined drastically. More and more technology only goes on to destroy the environment - animals and humans alike - through population, deforestation, etc.
If, say, the population were to decrease to about 750,000,000 and all forms of industrialization were to disappear (say, through an extremely devastating war), then the survivors would have many, many years to replenish and refresh the earth - those hundreds of years would prolong Earth's existence by centuries.
(P.S. AndSoccer16 says I should be a science fiction writer.)
People are not addicted to medicines as you claim.
Nuclear weapons are no longer being used as a deterrent factor and most countries have agreed to not use them in war so the point of how powerful they are is not an issue if they are never used
Man has always made his livelihood of technology a horse and plow are a type of technological tool as is a hoe, sickle, and any other farm instrument you can possibly devise. As long as there are people there will always be technological advancement.
Feudalism was an extremely oppressive and violent form of government with wars constantly being fought with neighboring lords over land and resources. Poverty ran rampant and the overall standard of living was low unless you were a lord.
Your last reply shows how easily misguided and ignorant many people can be today. You assume that humanity is not part of nature but separated from it; on the contrary we are an integral part of the workings of the world. Your statement that the world has declined drastically, I believe that it is an insult to the world as a whole the world is getting along fine, and is constantly changing. You cannot stop change as change is the only constant in this world. You also make a statement in replenish and refreshing the earth. What, may i ask, is depleted in the world or unrefreshed? If you are talking about the environment, then I take it you must live under a rock and have never been outside. On the deforestation of the rain forest for instance, while i agree it is a travesty and could be handled with more care, we are along way off from completely destroying it and continue to make great strides in the conservation and preservation of the areas in question.
Lastly on you statement of prolonging the earths existence, how would limiting humanity prolong the existence of the earth? The earth is a massive ball of rock and at the current time, we do not have the capability or the resources to destroy such a thing. If you know of a way of completing this monumental task please enlighten the rest of us.
People are not addicted to medicines as you claim.
This one right here ruined your credibility.
Nuclear weapons are no longer being used as a deterrent factor and most countries have agreed to not use them in war so the point of how powerful they are is not an issue if they are never used
Agreement shmagreement!
If somebody wants to get rid of a peoples enough - like the Palestinians against Israel, or Hitler against the Jews - they'll use it!
Man has always made his livelihood of technology a horse and plow are a type of technological tool as is a hoe, sickle, and any other farm instrument you can possibly devise. As long as there are people there will always be technological advancement.
I didn't say that there would be not. However, I believe that, as Einstein said, "it has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." That is, we need to revert back to primitive states of technological development whenever it becomes all-too-clear that technology has become too powerful.
Feudalism was an extremely oppressive and violent form of government with wars constantly being fought with neighboring lords over land and resources. Poverty ran rampant and the overall standard of living was low unless you were a lord.
Did I say to go back to feudalism?
Actually, I usually alternate between libertarianism and anarchism.
Your last reply shows how easily misguided and ignorant many people can be today.
The best way to start a sentence is to not do so with an insult, especially one which you cannot satisfactorily prove.
You assume that humanity is not part of nature but separated from it
No, I do not.
However, unlike most humans, I realize that there is more to this planet than humanity - that humans only care about themselves/their profit.
Your statement that the world has declined drastically, I believe that it is an insult to the world as a whole the world is getting along fine
You must be blind and deaf. I could, and I'm sure I have before, list many, many things about this world which I, and many others, loathe. However, whether or not these 'advancements' are good or not are a matter of personal opinion. If your opinion on this matter differs from mine, than you shall continue to argue that these 'advancements' are good, and I, bad.
You cannot stop change as change is the only constant in this world.
But you can regress. We may end up at the same place (i.e. current conditions), but it wouldn't be for quite some time and it would, in the end, possibly prolong humanity's existence.
If you are talking about the environment, then I take it you must live under a rock and have never been outside.
I go outside all the time, and I am each time besieged with pollution and disease.
e talking about the environment, then I take it you must live under a rock and have never been outside. On the deforestation of the rain forest for instance, while i agree it is a travesty and could be handled with more care, we are along way off from completely destroying it and continue to make great strides in the conservation and preservation of the areas in question.
Another typical example of human arrogance.
While it may be good that the whole of the rain forests/wooded areas have yet to be depleted, the fact remains that we are destroying many species as a result of our thoughtless destruction.
Lastly on you statement of prolonging the earths existence, how would limiting humanity prolong the existence of the earth?
Humans can destroy the world - or rather, those who live on the world - and as such ought be limited or eradicated for the purpose of preserving said world.
The earth is a massive ball of rock and at the current time, we do not have the capability or the resources to destroy such a thing.
We don't?
If you read the post-note, you will know that I, along with others, agree that your's truly ought be a science fiction writer. As such - as well as my being an INTJ - my mind will come up with scenario after scenario instantaneously to provide you with various plots which could destroy the earth. However, please be advised that I used the term 'destroy the earth' as a colloquialism and was not intended to be read as literally destroying/the destruction of the earth, but rather of the majority of the life which lives on it.
Nuclear weapons, for one.
P.S. I understand the ignorance of the Middle Ages perhaps better than most people; for instance, did you know that the common belief was that weasels gave birth through their ears? Right ear for males, left ear for females!
And people get addicted to them, which may further a government plot to control it's citizens.
Baseless paranoia. Governments plot to control us using law.
Yet, they are still extraordinarily powerful.
But less powerful than they were.
Utopia is in the eye of the Beholder.
And is therefore impossible.
In the last two hundred years, the world had declined drastically. More and more technology only goes on to destroy the environment - animals and humans alike - through population, deforestation, etc.
So why do you wish to save us at all, if you consider the environment to be more important that humanity?
If, say, the population were to decrease to about 750,000,000 and all forms of industrialization were to disappear (say, through an extremely devastating war), then the survivors would have many, many years to replenish and refresh the earth - those hundreds of years would prolong Earth's existence by centuries.
Such a war would have to be nuclear, which would render the previously habitable areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. We would be unable to grow food and die. The Earth would be left in a worse state than if industrial society continues.
P.S. AndSoccer16 says I should be a science fiction writer.
What a coincidence, I have such an aspiration. Did he mean that in a negative or positive way (Reply via message)? Have you read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton?
Baseless paranoia. Governments plot to control us using law.
Who is to say that they can't control us even more by issuing laws related to medicine. For instance, ritalin, the drug used for children with ADHD (many dispute ADHD's existence) has extraordinarily serious side effects - much worse than ADHD itself. Children are forced by law to take ritalin. If they don't they are expelled from school.
Also, ADHD could be a purely natural phenomena - children spend all day sitting around watching TV and using the computer/video games; if a child becomes hyper after all that laziness - all that 'pent up' energy, then who is to say that that is unnatural?
And is therefore impossible.
Impossible for society, not for the individual.
So why do you wish to save us at all, if you consider the environment to be more important that humanity?
I don't; I want humanity to 'end' - or rather, decrease drastically - so that Earth's environment can survive. (I hate environmentalists - I'm playing 'devil's advocate' on that regard)
Such a war would have to be nuclear, which would render the previously habitable areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. We would be unable to grow food and die. The Earth would be left in a worse state than if industrial society continues.
Precisely; humans are helpless.
Another possibility: a disease kills most people, the survivors cannot survive (for some reason) in the previously industrious regions.
Who is to say that they can't control us even more by issuing laws related to medicine.
That is probable.
Impossible for society, not for the individual.
Then it is impossible under the conditions that you laid out, unless we all became hermits, which would result in the extinction of the Human race.
I don't; I want humanity to 'end' - or rather, decrease drastically - so that Earth's environment can survive. (I hate environmentalists - I'm playing 'devil's advocate' on that regard)
I consider such a desire to be very strange. Why do you wish the Earth to be habitable if you also want to remove all intelligent inhabitants?
Precisely; humans are helpless.
A man with a stick is the most dangerous beast on Earth.
Another possibility: a disease kills most people, the survivors cannot survive (for some reason) in the previously industrious regions.
I consider such a desire to be very strange. Why do you wish the Earth to be habitable if you also want to remove all intelligent inhabitants?
Because the so-called 'intelligent inhabitants' are idiots with total disregard for life - both human and animal - unless it results in their own profit. Greed is everything to most humans.
Ever read "The stand", by Stephen King?
No, I have not; though, DaWolfman told me that a plot of a story I attempted to write was almost identical to The Stand.
Of course; they are selfish bastards and don't deserve to live - especially when they put personal profit above the lives of millions of animals and people.
Of course; they are selfish bastards and don't deserve to live
You condemn people to death because they do not value life? Hypocrisy.
especially when they put personal profit above the lives of millions of animals and people.
I don't think many people feel that way. There are certainly more compassionate people than greedy ones. It is easy to talk about reversion now, but in the event I think you would find pre-industrial life to be quite miserable.
You condemn people to death because they do not value life? Hypocrisy.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If one billion people will be responsible for many billions of deaths, than they need to be 'done away' with.
I don't think many people feel that way. There are certainly more compassionate people than greedy ones.
Are there, now? I quite find that difficult to imagine; why, think you, do few charities actually give a large portion of their money to the people they claim to be helping, rather than pocketing it for themselves?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If one billion people will be responsible for many billions of deaths, than they need to be 'done away' with.
Some of the worst atrocities in history have been perpetrated in the name of the greater good.
Are there, now? I quite find that difficult to imagine; why, think you, do few charities actually give a large portion of their money to the people they claim to be helping, rather than pocketing it for themselves?
It is more important to think of the millions of people who give to charity, not the thousands who misuse it.
It is more important to think of the millions of people who give to charity, not the thousands who misuse it.
How much do they give? 2%, maybe 3%?
Some of the worst atrocities in history have been perpetrated in the name of the greater good.
And we have no plausible way of knowing whether it turned out to be for the greater good or not. We assume, because of all the so-called 'atrocities', that those events were pure evil; they may have been some sort of 'blessing'.
They have families to feed as well. What are you a communist? I thought you had more sense than that.
And we have no plausible way of knowing whether it turned out to be for the greater good or not. We assume, because of all the so-called 'atrocities', that those events were pure evil; they may have been some sort of 'blessing'.
You achieve your aims if you perpetrate their antithesis to do so. Killing 6 billion people to save 1 billion people cannot be defined as "the greater good of humanity".
They have families to feed as well. What are you a communist? I thought you had more sense than that.
And we have no plausible way of knowing whether it turned out to be for the greater good or not. We assume, because of all the so-called 'atrocities', that those events were pure evil; they may have been some sort of 'blessing'.
You cannot achieve your aims if you perpetrate their antithesis to do so. Killing 6 billion people to save 1 billion people cannot be defined as "the greater good of humanity".
No, leaning more towards either anarchism or libertarianism.
I thought you had more sense than that.
Somebody has different political beliefs than you, and thus they must have no sense?
You cannot achieve your aims if you perpetrate their antithesis to do so. Killing 6 billion people to save 1 billion people cannot be defined as "the greater good of humanity".
What about killing 6 billion people to save Earth and all of it's inhabitants - both "animal, vegetable, and mineral"?
No, leaning more towards either anarchism or libertarianism.
Well, you understand the importance of money, I take it?
Somebody has different political beliefs than you, and thus they must have no sense?
All the evidence points to communism being a bad concept, as well as being (ironically) totally unfair. Besides, what are your opinions on liberals? Do they have much sense?
What about killing 6 billion people to save Earth and all of it's inhabitants - both "animal, vegetable, and mineral"?
"Both" of three options? Regardless of grammar, killing six billion people is not the way to save life. I think extinguishing that many sentient creatures negates the salvation of any number of animals and plants (Unless it is a such a number of animals and plants as would remove our food-source, though I trust I do not need to explain that). You seem very comfortable proposing this option, but in the event I doubt you could bring yourself to kill anybody, let alone six billion (mostly) innocent people.
All the evidence points to communism being a bad concept, as well as being (ironically) totally unfair.
Precisely, which is why I have, in past, argued that socialism is the best choice in theory, but that in practice it most likely would fail miserably.
Besides, what are your opinions on liberals? Do they have much sense?
There are, actually, a few areas with which I can agree with those radicals.
"Both" of three options?
I wasn't thinking clearly. The reference 'animal, vegetable, and mineral' comes from Gilbert & Sullivan's The Major General's Son.
I think extinguishing that many sentient creatures negates the salvation of any number of animals and plants
Why? How is it that sentience can be so important? Animals seem to get along just fine - many would say better than us humans - without that concept to which we refer as 'sentience'.
You seem very comfortable proposing this option,
I amthe Devil's Advocate, remember.
but in the event I doubt you could bring yourself to kill anybody, let alone six billion (mostly) innocent people.
Yeah, I know... Unfortunately, I probably couldn't make the call. Though I'm sure that our politicians are heartless enough to do so...
Precisely, which is why I have, in past, argued that socialism is the best choice in theory, but that in practice it most likely would fail miserably.
Then here we stand in agreement.
There are, actually, a few areas with which I can agree with those radicals.
Such as?
Why?
People are unique in personality, animals are not. destroying a human is like destroying an painting of which no copies have been or can be made. You may not like the painting, but it is irreplaceable.
How is it that sentience can be so important? Animals seem to get along just fine - many would say better than us humans - without that concept to which we refer as 'sentience'.
Social animals rarely willingly sacrifice their own kind, which is one of their more admirable traits.
I am the Devil's Advocate, remember.
Satan only ever killed one man.
Yeah, I know... Unfortunately, I probably couldn't make the call. Though I'm sure that our politicians are heartless enough to do so...
Decriminalization of drugs, for one thing (though it is still an 'iffy' topic for me)
People are unique in personality, animals are not. destroying a human is like destroying an painting of which no copies have been or can be made. You may not like the painting, but it is irreplaceable.
But most people are like abstract art or cubism - it's just better not to have them. They ruin it for everybody else.
Social animals rarely willingly sacrifice their own kind, which is one of their more admirable traits.
Altruism is a rather famous traits amongst ants; perhaps we could learn from them?
Decriminalization of drugs, for one thing (though it is still an 'iffy' topic for me)
Any you completely agree with?
But most people are like abstract art or cubism - it's just better not to have them. They ruin it for everybody else.
That is a matter of perspective (pun).
Altruism is a rather famous traits amongst ants; perhaps we could learn from them?
Perhaps you can start by ceasing to plot the death of 85% of our population then.
He did?
No, seven men and three women, at the command of God. All were the children of a man called Job, from the land of Urz. God, however, regularly committed Genocide.
No, seven men and three women, at the command of God. All were the children of a man called Job, from the land of Urz. God, however, regularly committed Genocide.
You don't even believe either exists; however, if you did, you would admit that the devil has been far more destructive over the years. For instance, the Vatican's chief exorcist insists that Hitler was possessed.
Your argument is too full of stupid to address it all so I'm going to pick one point:
The effects of all of Germany's pre-Industrial wars were not nearly as devastating as that of WWII.
While the number of people killed in these wars was high, the percentage of the population killed was actually lower than many wars. For example, look at the Thirty years war which claimed the lives of up to 30% of Germany. Some individual countries lost 3/4s of their population. In addition, the main cause of death in wars back then was disease, which killed much more than any weapon. I think WWI was the first war in which more people died from battle than illness (although I could be mistaken on that point). And anyways, our ability to treat the wounded would go way down.
Also one more point: food back then was ridiculously less healthy than food now. Other than the occaisional recall of tainted food we are eating the cleanest food in human history. If you went back to any time before Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle then you are likely to be eating your food with a nice helping of feces mixed right in. Lucky for us, the FDA now inspects the food (and drugs) we consume to ensure it is of good quality.
Too 'full of stupid'? It was meant to be purely hypothetical...
While the number of people killed in these wars was high, the percentage of the population killed was actually lower than many wars.
All together, about 75,000,000 people were killed during WWII. If it were not for Germany, one could argue that WWII would never have happened; or, at the very least, would have been on an infinitely smaller scale.
For example, look at the Thirty years war which claimed the lives of up to 30% of Germany.
My source says that estimates very from between 2 to 20 million. However, one must remember that the population is purely an estimate - they did not conduct censuses at this time. The numbers could be off by many millions - both for the number killed and the number of people that were alive before and after. Thus, one cannot with any accuracy state the percentage of the population killed.
Also, you will note that Black Death killed quite a hefty sum of people. Black Death may have occurred with or without the Thirty Years' War.
I think WWI was the first war in which more people died from battle than illness (although I could be mistaken on that point). And anyways, our ability to treat the wounded would go way down.
I stated 'pre-Industrial' wars. Germany's pre-Industrial wars were not as devastating as WWII. WWI took place after the 'Industrial Revolution'.
Also one more point: food back then was ridiculously less healthy than food now.
Less healthy back then?
Where should I start.
1. Grocery Stores mix frozen meat with fresh meat; when one freezes meat after they buy it, the frozen meat is being 'refrozen', which one would argue could taint it.
2. Processed foods are not all that healthy.
I just browsed through this link, but it seems to mostly prove my point:
I've actually 'experimented' a bit. I'd eat processed foods for a few weeks, then I'd eat natural foods for a few weeks. I went from suffering from horrible flatulence, stomach pains, heartburn, type 2 feces from the Bristol Stool Scale, etc.
Then, I started eating the healthy, non-processed foods, and all those side effects went away.
However, even those foods are not completely healthy!
If you went back to any time before Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle then you are likely to be eating your food with a nice helping of feces mixed right in.
According to my sources listed above, they eat things much worse than feces - as well as feces!
Lucky for us, the FDA now inspects the food (and drugs) we consume to ensure it is of good quality.
Also, you will note that Black Death killed quite a hefty sum of people. Black Death may have occurred with or without the Thirty Years' War.
But the black death wouldn't have happened if we had current medical technologies and hygiene standards. In other words: both war and disease have gotten a lot better in our modern age.
I stated 'pre-Industrial' wars. Germany's pre-Industrial wars were not as devastating as WWII. WWI took place after the 'Industrial Revolution'.
You misinterpreted my point. I was saying that until the industrial revolution disease was actually more harmful than weaponry.
1. Grocery Stores mix frozen meat with fresh meat; when one freezes meat after they buy it, the frozen meat is being 'refrozen', which one would argue could taint it.
How does freezing meat taint it?
As far as your complaints about foods, I could point out that the average life expectancy in the early 20th century was 30-45 whereas currently the world average is over 67 years (higher in nations where there are a lot of processed foods like the U.S.), or I could point out that processing foods allows it to last a whole lot longer. What's most important though is that if it matters so much to someone they have a choice. You can eat organic foods that aren't processed and don't use pesticides for not a whole lot more money. In other words, your whole argument is moot. If enough people demanded organic foods then that's what more people would sell. The fact that the whole market isn't organic shows that people don't care and it isn't having that much of an effect on their life.
I'm sorry about your (gross) medical issues, but I (and many others I know) have never had any issues with processed foods. If you want to have a real bad experience with food though, go to a foreign country that doesn't have our same food standards (some place in Africa or Asia for example). If you thought you got sick before, just wait. This is what food was like before we had the FDA to look at our food.
And they are completely trustworthy?
I don't see why not. Sorry I don't share your paranoia, but the people at the FDA are hired to make sure we have safe food. If people started dying because of eating food approved by them then these people would obviously lose their jobs. Otherwise we would vote out the people who appointed the head of the FDA (yay for democracy!).
Codex Alimentarius
Oooh, skull and crossbones with a scary sounding name! I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I'm pretty sure that this Codex Alimentarius thing isn't nearly as insidious as the women makes it out to be. It isn't an attempt to make certain treatments "illegal like heroin". It is an attempt to set up standards for foods. These standards include the amount of pesticide residue that can exist in certain foods, which is one of the things that your articles was complaining about. What's more important is that Codex Alimentarius is not legally binding for any country, it's just recommendations.
But the black death wouldn't have happened if we had current medical technologies and hygiene standards. In other words: both war and disease have gotten a lot better in our modern age.
However, we can now manufacture diseases - diseases which would make the Black Death look like child's play.
How does freezing meat taint it?
I don't know; however, this is what I was told by several people involved in the food industry.
As far as your complaints about foods, I could point out that the average life expectancy in the early 20th century was 30-45
Where?
I studied genealogy a few years back; most of my relatives - poor relatives, mind you - died in their sixties or seventies. This was back in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s. Also, there were very few cases of infant mortality in my family back then. That covers both Canada and the US. If the averages from your source are for the entire world, than I remind you that in much of Africa and parts of Asia the average lifespans are fairly low; also, I remind you that records at the time were horribly shoddy.
You can eat organic foods that aren't processed and don't use pesticides for not a whole lot more money.
That's a matter of opinion.
For a family who can hardly afford the cheapest of foods, how are they to afford organic?
The fact that the whole market isn't organic shows that people don't care and it isn't having that much of an effect on their life.
Whether they care about it or not is besides the point; I am arguing about that which is best for the populace, not that which the populace desires.
I'm sorry about your (gross) medical issues
It is not so much a medical issue as it is a result of their poor-quality food. Also, most of the people with whom I am acquainted have had similar effects from eating these types of food.
but I (and many others I know) have never had any issues with processed foods.
That you know of.
Have you ever experienced bouts of flatulence? Constipation? Stomach pains? Those, and many other "symptoms" people may overlook, but I argue from experience that we'd be a much healthier nation without processed foods.
For further evidence, see my video at the bottom.
If you want to have a real bad experience with food though, go to a foreign country that doesn't have our same food standards (some place in Africa or Asia for example).
Yes, of course; however, their hygiene undoubtedly has not increased much over the last few centuries.
Otherwise we would vote out the people who appointed the head of the FDA (yay for democracy!).
I watched a Canadian documentary awhile back which stated that when a package indicated the country in which it was made - typically Canada- the company, according to law, only needs to indicate the nation from which the majority (or rather, a certain percentage; it's been about six or seven years since I watched it) of the item being purchased came from. That means that they can be selling you, say, fish from a region that is considered 'off limits', however, they can legally state that the item came from Canada if the package is from Canada!
What's more important is that Codex Alimentarius is not legally binding for any country, it's just recommendations.
Yes, however, it is part of the WTO. If two countries come to the WTO with a dispute regarding foodstuffs, the nation which is Codex-Compliant automatically wins the dispute, no matter the validity of the other nation's arguments!
Supporting Evidence:
Supersize Me
(video.google.com)
However, we can now manufacture diseases - diseases which would make the Black Death look like child's play.
You really should write science fiction. What diseases can we manufacture, and have any of these diseases ever actually been used? Maybe it's yes to the first, but it's definitely no to the second. In fact not only could we have prevented black death, but we completely eliminated small pox one of the most destructive diseases known to man. These are just a few examples of the wonders of modern medicine.
I don't know; however, this is what I was told by several people involved in the food industry.
I heard from a guy is your source...well clearly that must be right, why are we even debating?
I studied genealogy a few years back; most of my relatives - poor relatives, mind you - died in their sixties or seventies. This was back in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s. Also, there were very few cases of infant mortality in my family back then. That covers both Canada and the US. If the averages from your source are for the entire world, than I remind you that in much of Africa and parts of Asia the average lifespans are fairly low; also, I remind you that records at the time were horribly shoddy.
Not gonna lie, but you really need to understand the concept of sample size. Just because something is the case for you, or someone you know means very little. Now I can give you statistics from the National Center of Health Statistics or the Center for Disease control and Prevention or from The Department of Health and Human Services raw data, graph or a ton of other organizations and they all point to the same thing: industrialization is good for our health. We live longer and healthier now then we ever had...so maybe drop it with the food thing already. Unless you think we evolved to be super resistant to the terrible things in our food, then clearly what we're eating/getting as medical treatment is helping us live longer.
For a family who can hardly afford the cheapest of foods, how are they to afford organic?
In the past those families wouldn't have been able to afford to eat anything. I'm pretty sure they're happy with the food. In addition, we are the only society in the history of the world that has a negative correlation between weight and wealth. In other words those poor families are spending too much on food. I'm pretty sure they could afford to eat less and healthier...they just choose not to.
Whether they care about it or not is besides the point; I am arguing about that which is best for the populace, not that which the populace desires.
So you'd take away freedom of choice rather than letting people decide whether they want to eat the organic or the processed stuff? Plus, as I've said earlier, we're a whole lot healthier now then we were in the past.
That you know of...
As someone who did three sports in highschool keeping in shape was a big priority. A big part of that had to do with my diet, and I promise that I would know if I was under the weather. The only health issues I had throughout highschool were completely unrelated to diet. So once again, allow me to point out that personal anecdotal evidence is useless.
Plus I'd willingly put up with a little extra gas for over 20 years more life...wouldn't you?
I watched a Canadian documentary...
Unrelated and unreliable source. I watched a documentary that said George Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and that dentists are secretly working for the CIA by putting listening devices in your teeth.
You will believe almost any source that you think supports your point regardless of its validity. I find it funny how selectively you exercise your skepticism. You'll dispute a scientific study, but if your uncle tells you something then it may as well be a mandate from god...all that matters is whether or not it supports what you say.
Yes, however, it is part of the WTO. If two countries come to the WTO with a dispute regarding foodstuffs, the nation which is Codex-Compliant automatically wins the dispute, no matter the validity of the other nation's arguments!
What authority does the WTO actually have? Since when can it settle international disputes? What would an international dispute about foodstuffs even be?
I find it funny how selectively you exercise your skepticism. You'll dispute a scientific study, but if your uncle tells you something then it may as well be a mandate from god...all that matters is whether or not it supports what you say.
Why should he get a point for making erroneous claims?
First of all, I have not mentioned any relations in this debate, much less an uncle.
I find it funny how selectively you exercise your skepticism.
He is judging me despite not being in a position to do so. He does not know in the slightest to what extent I am skeptical.
You'll dispute a scientific study, but if your uncle tells you something then it may as well be a mandate from god
No, and I double-check nigh everything which I can remember from conversations with people (please note that, whilst I do converse frequently with an uncle of mine, I look for sources on everything he says. He is an aged man with an aged brain, however much I may love him, that is the fact of the matter).
all that matters is whether or not it supports what you say.
Funny how I am called the idiot when I give a dozen sources by people who rarely give any sources at all.
This is most likely an insult, though I shan't take it as such.
In fact not only could we have prevented black death, but we completely eliminated small pox one of the most destructive diseases known to man. These are just a few examples of the wonders of modern medicine.
Yup, this looks like a perfectly healthy "Brave New World".
A big part of that had to do with my diet, and I promise that I would know if I was under the weather. The only health issues I had throughout highschool were completely unrelated to diet.
You, and most likely nearly all of your friends, are teenagers. Wait a few decades, then you'll feel it. . .
Unrelated and unreliable source.
Everything is unreliable.
If only I could remember the name. . .
I watched a documentary that said George Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks
that dentists are secretly working for the CIA by putting listening devices in your teeth.
If you don't mind my asking, just what was it called? While I still find [most] reports of that kind of stuff to be ludicrous, it'd still be an interesting watch.
You will believe almost any source that you think supports your point regardless of its validity.
First off, what made you think I got any of this from an uncle of mine? Frankly, I can't say we've ever spoken on this subject.
Secondly, my aged uncle is not as - shall-we-say youthful - as he once was. His mind, while still quite good, is not as good as it once was. I check for sources for nigh everything that anybody - whoever it may be - ever tells me.
Once again, I don't share your paranoia.
Of course not, you're a liberal. The world will fall apart under your nose, and you won't even think anything is wrong - other than that there seem to be fewer and fewer of us damn non-liberals around.
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
Sure, you may insist that Obama has denounced his minister. That does not mean anything, seeing as how he willingly went to a black radical church (or rather, cult) for longer than you've been alive! There are about a dozen churches within walking distance of my house - surely Obama had many more to chose from. Many Christians would leave a church if they have only a mediocre disagreement; why would he continue to go to a church that preaches Black Liberation Theology?
I think we've somebody here who believes this stuff.
This is most likely an insult, though I shan't take it as such.
What I meant was that you have a very active imagination, since you seem to be seeing more then is actually there.
Yes, and new diseases keep appearing.
And what's your point? New diseases would keep appearing regardless of whether we are technologically advanced or not. Because we have modern medicine, however, we actually have a chance to fight and cure these diseases.
And how are links to blogs any better (something which you have done, by the way)?
Where have I based one of my arguments based solely on information in a blog? Seriously, show me. You have numerous times cited things you remember people told you, unreliable blogs, and sites that are obviously ridiculous.
And how many people today can afford to eat?
I already showed you that we are healthier then we were in the past by showing you the dramatic increase in life expectancy, but now you want to talk about how there's not enough food because people are starving. People have always been starving, but now as a whole we have a much lower percentage of people starving thanks to increased agricultural technology and globalization. Even now, the numbers are still improving everywhere except for those nations which don't have the technological advantages of the west (like in Africa).
Let me as though, what are you doing to help solve the problem? I've already seen that you are against welfare, so obviously you don't want to do that to help, but what would you suggest? We are much wealthier now (in real per capita terms) than we have ever been thanks to technology, so we are all in a better position to help those in need then we would be without technology, but from what I've seen you don't want to help.
I'm not saying our world is perfect, but it's a lot better than it was, and is constantly improving. If we got rid of technology, we wouldn't have millions facing starvation, it would be billions.
You, and most likely nearly all of your friends, are teenagers. Wait a few decades, then you'll feel it. . .
Well, fortunately I will be able to wait probably at least another 6 decades...I could not wait this long in your hypothetical world without technology. Like I've said before, I'd be happy to live with gas if it means I almost double my lifespan.
Everything is unreliable.
First of all, no. Secondly, even if this were the case then we would both be equally unequal to argue anything. Thirdly, you can't look at things like this in such a black and white way. Maybe you think nothing is completely reliable, but certainly there are degrees of reliability. For example, when Kim Jong Il claims to shoot 38 under par his first time golfing, then that's the time to be more than a little bit skeptical. Obviously a peer reviewed scientific study would be a much more reliable source...in fact I'm having difficulty thinking of a more reliable source. The point is that you can't just say: nothing is reliable, because you know that it isn't true even if you don't want to admit it.
There's quite a bit of proof - both of American involvement in 9/11
No, there's just a bunch of crazy people who like to stir up conspiracies. Look at the site again. The quotes they give of prominent people who think there's a conspiracy are taken out of context. Most of the time it's just senators saying that the Bush administration is trying to hide the fact that it was incompetent, not that they were trying to covering up the fact that they had actually planned the attacks. What conspiracy theories like this appeal to is our innate desire to find patterns. The human mind is designed to see patterns, and make conclusions off of them even when sometimes there isn't anything there.
Let's get a reality check real quick: you think that the Bush administration staged an entire plot to attack our own buildings, framed Osama Bin Laden and an afghan terrorist group, and this group willingly agreed to accept responsibility, and the whole point of this was to start a war in a nation that caused the Russians to essentially lose the cold war because it's nearly impossible to fight against people that hide in caves, and among civilians? I could go on about any number of other things that make this story even less plausible, but I'm going to stop before I catch myself arguing with a crazy person. Speaking of...
If you don't mind my asking, just what was it called? While I still find [most] reports of that kind of stuff to be ludicrous, it'd still be an interesting watch.
It was a joke! I was mostly joking about the 9/11 thing because I didn't think anyone in their right mind would take these claims seriously, but come on terminator, use your head!
Believe? No. Use as a source? Yes.
That just makes you a hypocrite who isn't actually after the truth but merely wants to try to "win" an argument. That is extremely intellectually dishonest.
I do not need to believe something to argue it
Well this explains why your out of touch with reality at least...also why you seem to have such a high opinion of yourself.
First off, what made you think I got any of this from an uncle of mine? Frankly, I can't say we've ever spoken on this subject.
Once again, I was being facetious. I didn't actually mean that your uncle told you anything, but my point was that you use unreliable sources. Try and keep up.
Of course not, you're a liberal. The world will fall apart under your nose, and you won't even think anything is wrong - other than that there seem to be fewer and fewer of us damn non-liberals around.
Lol, what?
You don't seem to think anything is wrong with John Holdren.
Mostly because there isn't. Go to his book and read the passages that these right wing bloggers are referring to. He don't advocate anything of the sort that they claim he does. The phrases they use are taken completely out of context.
Once again: use reliable sources.
Nor do you seem to mind the fact that Obama's pastor (and former religious adviser) hates white people and, according to Wright's mentor, they ought be destroyed along with any pro-white Gods.
Nor do you seem to mind Obama's countless lies.
Nor do you mind that Obama praises Satan.
Tell me, what do you think of the decision regarding the New Black Panthers?
Liberals ought to be ashamed of themselves for who they voted into office.
That's it, I'm done arguing with you. If you are willing to take any of these articles seriously then clearly I am wasting my time arguing with a crazy person who doesn't have the ability to distinguish reality from bullshit. You claim to be a skeptic yet I find your skepticism clearly lacking when it comes to these articles... even a 5 year old could tell these are bullshit, not to mention the fact that your conspiracy theories contradict each other (how can he be an ardent supporter of the doctrine of his church and worship satan?). When you decide to go outside and begin to actually use that brain that I'm starting to doubt is in your head then maybe I'll continue with these arguments. Until then don't waste my time with bullshit.
If you want to go back to pre-industrial society, societies still exist, and they are known as the Amish among numerous tribes in Africa and Asia.
Before cars and when horses were widespread, there was one problem; the manure become immensely cumbersome and smelly that in urban and rural areas, leaders knew something had to be done. Therefore, the car was invented; however, it needed oil and gas. Well, whales at first were the only source of oil, and whales were hunted near extinction until a man discovered all the oil under the ground. Now, we are at the same predicament as our predecessors were in formulating innovative ways to reinvent our technology.
Therefore, it is hard to say that we are still in technological infancy and maybe approaching technological adolescence.
Can we survive? Yes, but we must think outside the box and reinvent.
Are we self destructive? Without a doubt.
Humanity existence is a process through progress, yet it doesn't mean that humanity's existence is necessary.
humanity is dammed by our own inelligence -coz we humans have ever used anytin properly........we don trust human resourse but we trust machines which in return leads to lack of jobs, greed, crime ,a society which lacks empathy , sympathy , gratitude, respect.anything used in a limited quantity is good but we either overuse it r not at all use it..........we r the xtreme species............we destroy our lives an other's tooooo.......we r the one who created modern technology..........wen we create it we put our name in front of it tellin everyone we CREATED IT but wen it is responsible 4 destruction r if it is harmful instead of puttin our name first we blame the modern teachnology. if we can stop blamin others an clean our own dirt.........it wud lead to a much beter society.....an we can give the credit 4 that to us
If we get rid of anybody who's bent on dominating the world then we might have a chance. This means most western societies. 90% of their actions (the dominating type not just europeans) has been towards harming the world whereas the other 10% has improved it. If only they'd spent 100% of their energy into improving the world... then we wouldn't be where we are now. More of a paradise less of a shithole.
There was poverty in India, Africa and China long before technological innovation. They are comparatively worse off, but most are better off in real terms. In other words a poor person in China is way better off now then he was even 100 years ago. Modern medicine and economic growth have seen to that.
You can't argue that because some people benefitted a lot and others benefitted less that technology and innovation have been bad...that doesn't make sense.
We're not talking about technological innovation here.
In other words a poor person in China is way better off now then he was even 100 years ago.
There's a lot more poverty now in those countries than there was before europeans came and raped it. Do you think there would've been such large or atleast similar scoio-economic problems currently faced by those countries? Obvious answer is no.
We're not talking about technological innovation here.
Well that is the title of the debate, but w/e.
There's a lot more poverty now in those countries than there was before europeans came and raped it.
Not actually true. There is a lot more prosperity in China right now then there has been in their entire history. There are still poor areas, but even the poor are better off then in the past.
Now if we are looking back to the beginning of the 20th century then we can definitely see that much of China was economically exploited by the west. As far as the actual raping and killing of people: that was mostly the Japenese. They did terrible, terrible things to their people. After we beat the Japs in WWII (you're welcome China) the Maoist government took over in China, and the Chinese went ahead and killed themselves for a couple decades. Once again: not Europeans.
Since then though, China has been experiencing unprecedented economic growth thanks to their partial adoption of capitalism and the technological innovations of the west. In addition, China now has the miracle of modern medicine thanks to the west. In fact, I was involved in a group that raised money for Chinese orphans with cleft pallet.
So in summary: if we were in the 1910's you may have a point. But 100 years since then, China can't blame any of its current issues on the west, and can thank America in large part for its current growth.
Do you think there would've been such large or atleast similar scoio-economic problems currently faced by those countries?
You don't understand what I'm saying. We're talking about relative poverty. The poorest person in the whole of fucking america probably owns as much as the richest person in the world did 500 years ago.
We're not just talking about China here either. Africa and India too. But let's stick to China for a bit seeing as you're right that it was Japan and Mao who kind of fucked them a little bit too. China has for most of it's history been better off than most other civilisations right? It does have a few dark spots i.e. building of the Great Wall and some Repression and Aristocracy here and there but in general it's been pretty fucking good. Then what happened when the westerners and japs came? A lot of shit. China isn't the best example and my knowledge isn't so deep but stick with India and you cannot argue that the west's influence on it has been better on it....
So you want to blame the west because they surpassed China in terms of technology and power? My point is that even though China may be relatively worse off than it once was, each individual citizen is actually better off because of technological innovation.
Also, China has the 2nd highest GDP in the world...so it's not like they're some backwards 3rd world country. You could probably argue that the fact that they now trade a lot with the west has actually helped them achieve this position.
So both relatively and in real terms China is better off.
Yeah China is better off now. Just as all countries are better off.
My original post said that the West has used it's technology to exploit more than it has used to develop. That's all. If it had used it's abilities to develop then there probably wouldn't be the same issues there are now. Different.. but not the same.
So you don't really have much of an argument at all then is what you're saying.
The west didn't unselfishly shower gifts down upon China and India, but instead entered into trade with them, and although they prospered from it, it would have been better if the U.S. had just given everything away? Basically your just upset because the west was successful and other nations were slightly less successful.
In addition, just throwing money at countries doesn't make them more successful. If we can take any lesson from the billions of dollars in aid sent to Africa, its that a country has to develop itself and the best way for the west to help would be through trade, not donations. In trade both sides benefit. One side may benefit more, but that doesn't mean the other side was hurt.
Ahhh i really cannot be bothered to continue with these pointless arguments. I've said this a million times so I'll say it again. Every civilisation has its ups and downs, they all have their time at the top and bottom... all you got to do is see the differences, who's done the best and who's done the worst. I can safely say that Europeans have by far been the most evil. They've improved a little bit... but I don't think it's enough to make up for their past.
I'm just going to go ahead and give you a little hint: those Europeans that you claim were so evil are dead and have been dead for a long ass time. No one who is currently living has committed any of the atrocities you are blaming and entire race for. In fact, I basically showed you numerous examples of atrocities committed by Asians, and if you want I can detail what Africans have done in darfur and other areas in Africa. Unlike you though I wouldn't blame a whole race for the faults of individuals...why? Because that would be racist.
So you're not American. You're andsoccer16. Calling you American is racist?
Americans live in America. Apparently that's a racist statement.
So is Europeans invaded the Middle East. Apparently according to you that's racist.
My dad (Mr. K) used to rape young girls and get paid for it. He made millions of pounds doing this. I've now inherited this fortune of his. I'm now called Mr. K. If you ever call the K's a bunch of child molester's, you're racist. The child molesting K is now long dead. It has nothing to do with me. Not does the fact that I live in a million pound mansion in the Carribeans ok?
America didn't make money raping you girls. America made its money through industry and now has the largest GDP in the world, and this has nothing to do with immoral business.
Americans didn't inherit anything except for a multi-trillion dollar debt which is mostly owed to....oh shit the Chinese.
European is basically the same thing as saying white since white people are originally from Europe, and you clearly meant white people. You also clearly want to blame all the world's problems on white people...be honest, if not with me than at least with yourself.
I am not responsible for the actions of others, but any damage that may have been done has been more than paid off in foreign aid.
America didn't make money raping young girls, or anything metaphorically equivalent.
I also like the part of your argument where you ignore everything else I said...I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you have nothing to say to it so that's why you concentrated on the one part of my argument you thought you could rebut.
Why would I continue with an argument that's basically irrelevant to my post?
If I start arguing about how horses should shit on the street and you don't reply to it you want me to sit there and tell you you're evading my arguments?
Blood money. That's what you have in your pocket right now. Look through the pages of your history. If there's blood being spilt, America is sure to capitalise it. From slavery which built the country to warring for oil which keeps the country running.
Blood money. That's what you have in your pocket right now. Look through the pages of your history. If there's blood being spilt, America is sure to capitalise it. From slavery which built the country to warring for oil which keeps the country running.
How can you possibly say you know that about me? You have no idea where my parents came from, or how they made their money. In fact the only thing you know about me is that I'm white. In other words: you are just being racist. You can't stand the fact that America has been successful and therefore try to claim that everyone there somehow earned their money through illegitimate means.
If you want some actual history about my family, then you should know that my father was born into a poor family, and essentially worked his way up in the world after working his way through college. Any money I have now, or will have from him is most certainly not blood money, but hard earned dollars.
Whether you care to admit it or not, you are a racist, who refuses to accept that any white person can get rich honestly. You also have a serious misunderstanding of history if you continue painting the U.S. as this devil figure, and a misunderstanding of economics if you think that it made money through evil means.
Lol I'm not talking about you as in YOU. I'm talking about America. Duh.
You also have a serious misunderstanding of history if you continue painting the U.S. as this devil figure, and a misunderstanding of economics if you think that it made money through evil means.
Yeah forreal. Your painting of America as an angelic figure who hasn't benefited off the misery of others is definately correct.
If America did not benefit off the misery of others, by either promoting, provoking, instigating or being involved in it, it would be about as 'great and powerful' as zimbabwe...
If America did not benefit off the misery of others, by either promoting, provoking, instigating or being involved in it, it would be about as 'great and powerful' as zimbabwe...
Wow, you are retarded.
I could go on about why America is as powerful as it is today because of Good governance and infrastructure, bountiful natural resources, a very good system of education, lots of creativity and the opportunity for entrepreneurialism, but I can tell that all of this would be a waste since you are clearly fucked in the head. Seriously, we have already established you know jack shit about economics, so it should come as no surprise that you think America is rich because it took advantage of other nations.
Anyways, I'm going to go ahead and move on with my life and stop trying to argue with delusional people who could seriously benefit from an education.
What proof? You provided zero proof, except for proof of your misunderstanding of economics.
The government of the U.S. is funded by taxes. These taxes come from the American people. The reason the U.S. is the richest nation is because it has 300,000,000 people and one of the most productive economies in the world. None of this has to do with "blood money".
You being too stupid to argue with doesn't mean you've won.
Today, the common man lives better than the kings of old. Caesar, the most powerful man in Rome, did not have electricity, a constant supply of hot water or super-fast travel. This is better. I understand people like you are predisposed towards wearing loincloths and rolling in the muck like savages, but I quite like modern life, as do most people. I tire of your constant anti-white assertions which are not supported by any form of evidence. If you have something meaningful to say then say it. If not, then kindly retreat into some dark, damp corner of the world and die. India for example.
So I'm guessing you have no diea what the word relatively means
Not when it is used incorrectly by the likes of you. Relative to the past, life is better now. Relative to now, life in the past was a miserable affair. You going to refute that or evade the issue by insulting me?
Taken in comparison to something else. In comparison to then, the world is better.
It's a shame of how proud you are being English yet you don't have the ability to understand the language.
Ignorance is, it seems, an exclusive form of knowledge. The man who possesses it may contradict even the most learned persons, for he is surrounded by an impenetrable wall, a jealously guarded, unassailable fortress of the mind.
Statistics (made by white folk so YOU can actually trust them) beg to differ.
Am I the only one who actually knows about these things or do you think that these countries were ruled by nomadic sheep before europeans came and stuck their little dicks into the ground.
Im from China, and my mom took a history course in university on China. THings weren't much better before the Europeans came along. The government was at least as bad as it is today.
Are those comforts really worth giving us the ability to blindly destroy our world? Our greed and short sightedness in such matters of comfort, profit and short-term benefit, our complacency, our seemingy inability to handle such things responsibly - the real threat we pose to ourselves far outweighs the paltry comforts of hot water and electric light - it however does not (perhaps) outweigh the massive advances in science, medicine and insight we have gained as a byproduct of these technologies.
The atomic bomb was originally intended to end the largest war in human history. In addition, scientists knew that the technology used in the bomb could also be used for peaceful purposes. However, the use of the bomb has been hijacked by power- hungry politicians and generals to further their own ends.
Sure. The atomic bomb was used to end the world's biggest, bloodiest and costliest war EVER. Sure, close to 500k died and several more suffered, but the atomic bomb SAVED the 2 million+ lives analysts estimate would have been needed to completely invade Japan, and that figure doesn't even consider the wounded. Personally, I think that saving 1.5 million lives, no matter their ethnicity, is good for humanity.
However, the atomic bomb still exists. It can still do a great amount of damage.
Albert Einstein said: "If only I had known, I would have been a locksmith."
He also said: "It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." That means, that we have progressed (if you agree that such a monstrosity is 'progress') to the point where one idiot can cause untold damage to both life and limb.
If only I had known, I would have been a locksmith.
Watchmaker actually.
That means, that we have progressed (if you agree that such a monstrosity is 'progress') to the point where one idiot can cause untold damage to both life and limb.
I maintain that your argument is forty years outdated. If you are going to judge humanity solely upon its' worst inventions, then your conclusion will have little pertinence to reality, being wrong.
I advise you to look to humanity's greater works, which are many, as indeed you are advised to behold its' wrath. Then, having of both hues tasted, render unto us your judgement, for it shall be a learned one.
If but a fraction of the energies spent utterly, with purpose only to dress humanity as a villain, were warped to better effect, to the betterment of all, then we would indeed be held in saintly regard. But, if our cruel countenance's counterpart were to do oppositely, then should the world fall swiftly into chaos and utter ruin. As such, we are in temperament matched even, and, armed so, I defy you to conceive a refutation that is in all things: fair.
Reduced to so great an extent that they cannot cause damage in the extreme?
Reducing at such a rate as to discredit doomsday theories involving them. Nuclear war did not happen when the world stage was perfectly set up for it; it will not happen now.
