Should we try to safeguard our species?

[wardz]

ok, I take that religious part back, well a part of it.

 

But there Is truth in my arguement, I should have phrased it better, for hundreds of years in Europe there was fighting because of religion, even today, the UK isn't allowed a catholic monarch due to all the fighting that took place many years ago,

 

also, the UK among others waged many a war to wipe out the catholics and spread christianity throughout the world.

 

Anyway, I think might not be as stupid as you make out, there is a history of different ethnic origins in my family, especially after the World Wars.

 

I am quite happy to get into a debate kurgan, but dont make it into an arguement.

 

I guess you're condeming the thousands of belief systems all over the world,

 

no, I live in the most successful multi-cultural society in the world, the UK is much more diverse than anywhere else you will find, especially as we are only a small nation and it is You that is making the arrogant and naive assumptions now.

 

 

but it's definately not Judaism verses Muslim theology here

 

I never said it was, you did.

 

It's usually just "we won this land fair and square, now you get off" and "you killed some of our people, now we want revenge."

 

That is how it is now, but it was religion that fuelled the war in the first place.

 

My uncle went to Northern Ireland in the Eighties and was nearly killed several times simply because the Catholics hate the Protestants.

 

Basically what i was saying in a broad sense was that if we had no religion then some of the aggro could be cut out although I could have phrased it a little better.

 

I enjoy these discussions buts lets be tolerant to each other's views, okay?

 

wardz

[Guest Krayt Tion]

That's a pretty safe conviction. Most people would probably not hold an unflinching belief in humanity's security. That is why there are so many US public institutions to actually help with humanity's security (e.g., the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), USDA, NOAA, Center for Diseases Control, FBI, and the US Agency for Internatioal Development (USAID), but to name a few).

 

All of these institutions take steps to help with the security, in one form or another, of residents of US and foreign countries. And it also explains why globally, defense expenditures take the lion share of public spending. To say nothing of the thousands of non-profit chartible groups who also strive to help out their fellow man.

 

This addresses the original question of this thread 'should we safeguard our species.' Governments have already shown the answer is a demonstrated yes.

 

Okay... Am I supposed to edgy or something? Next time I'll post something more controversial.

 

We've lived with nuclear weapons for 56 years. And with biological weapons for more than 80 years. But gee whiz, the world hasn't come to an end.

 

The timing of this subtopic is appropriate: the US just yesterday destroyed the last missile nuclear missile silo required as part of the START Treaty. The world is being made safer.

 

Gee whiz, the military is still continually advancing military technology to kill more efficiently. But only for the better protection and reduced casualties of our military. And surely not on a massive scale. We would of course know about it then and so would everyone else in the world. It says so in writing somewhere, I'm sure. And we wouldn't need any more advanced weapons of offensive massive destruction with an adequate air defense system. And we are of course only doing it for the benefit of the protection of humanity. Oh, and the US will of course be the paternalistic savior at the forefront of any such activities. Fortunately this will be easier to do considering we give private companies government military contracts to develop much of this military tech for us, so some of our own citizens can benefit from this twice over from this. You can read about all this and more in the latest copy of Honest American People Magazine.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=naive"]link.

 

The fact that people can get by with less means everything because it is proof that humans can survive without Western-style luxuries. We must not forget that our ancestors somehow survived without modern conveniences such as petroleum and electrification. This was true for the great majority of human history, for the great majority of the population. No reason to believe that humans couldn't survive future adversity.

 

Twisted competely out of context. This was in light of resource consumption and man's ability to take from others and fight over it at the same time. And speaking of which let's go back to the original quote which prompted this:

 

Presumably you're assuming human 'greed' and 'high maintainence' because of your Western background and experience. Go to the developing world and see if 'consumption' is really out of control. People get by with so little in so many countries.

 

Oh yes. I only assume Greed can be a human vice because I come from a society where it is easily seen. The people that get by on what many here would consider 'nothing' do so only because they aren't greedy. Heaven knows they live the way they do not because they are born into it without the any easy means to escape their condition but because they would rather risk starvation and disease because it is more noble.

 

Are you concluding that optimists don't face reality because they are afraid? The same is true for pessimists: 'pessimists assume the worst in people because they are afraid.' It is impossible to ask 'how do I make the world better?' without first recognizing its problems to begin with.

 

Optimists? Who said anything about optimists? You're the only one here that is trying to lump me and you into a groups with other associative characteristics. I guess it's easier to attack qualities I don't have and are merely given to me? The glass is half empty for me on the issue of our ability to survive amongst each other with increasingly power weapon technologies compared to death by natural disaster. You can't translate that directly into any other of my views on life that I haven't talked about until you find out a bit damn more about me. You are clueless in this regard.

 

It's easier to just throw one's hands up in the air and say 'oh yeah, people are evil and will destroy humanity' than to actually recognize that 'people' have and will continue to do good things for each other. It is harder to focus on how to continue to make life better, than to just say 'I give up, I trust noone.'

 

That honestly digusts me. I hazard a guess that we would off ourselves before any natural disaster and now all a sudden I can't see any good in humanity at all. That is arrogant presumptiousness taken to a new level. Giving up? If I felt there was no good in this world I would have killed myself a long time ago. Same goes for me not thinking I could do any good. Now you know, maybe you should find out a little bit more before you label me.

 

There is nobasis for the assumption that people with a positive outlook don't think about, recognize or do anything about world problems.

 

There you go again making up a group with assumed characteristics that I wasn't even addressing. I wasn't talking about everyone with a 'postive outlook' (if I can even be sure what that means), merely addressing a group that refuses to help because they are living fine and so long as that remains they can always assume the best. This could differ very much from someone who it seems you are making yourself out to be. Understand the difference and don't assume I'm talking about one or the other. I felt the description of a certain kind of people made it sufficiently recognizable, but apparently not.

 

Furthermore, there is no basis for the assumption that people with a 'negative outlook' don't think about, recognize or do anything about world problems. Just like you said about the 'positive outlook' scenario.

 

In fact I've met people who have concluded that since the world is one incredibly large ceaspool of crap and they could easily see it continuing that way, that they might as well do some good for the short time they are here so they can at least say they tried in their later life's reflection.

 

edited for ubb code correction

 

[ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

What does the adept nature of roaches have to do in any way with whether or not humans can survive in the long run? Should we adapt some of their traits or something so we can survive unchanged? How about we start breeding in horrendous numbers. We'll simplify our brains and genetic makeup, and live in dark recesses, eating waste. Somehow I don't think that will play in Peoria, sparky.

 

OT: If humans are not the 'superior' life form on this planet, then which one is, and can they even talk about it?

 

It's about superiority in evolutionary terms and on an evolutionary scale. Adaption is one of the founding principles of evolution, find a way to survive or die off. In this respect, it could easily be said that a superior life form is one that has a greater staying power and a greater chance to survive. This is why your evolutionary view is quite egocentric.

 

It seems like you assume that superiority in this fashion is something we are entitled to because of or smart smart brains, which is laughable.

 

As clever, logical and practical as we might be we are still beasts burdened by our emotions, in all parts of the world and throughout all of our self-imposed governing structures.

 

Keep waiting for the Age of Enlightenment Part XVI, if I were to assign some slapstic label for a time when things just 'get better.' While I personally hope it comes I won't say that it definitely will. I'm betting on the cockroach.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

I don't mean to downplay any of your thoughts on religion thus far, but:

 

As far as religion is concerned, it is just an insitution, spiritual or social framework that is created by man. Why blame the insitution instead of our own human nature?

[wardz]

I am not saying that all religion is bad we must get rid of it.

 

I am just saying "in a broad sense" that In my opinion - "MY OPINION" it has caused more trouble than its worth, it was meant to unite people with a common goal, to love their god etc, but it has bought out the worst.

 

You're right, We have made it up and to me it has done no real good, but it is people's responsiblity to make it work i suppose, but western culture has played a part in its "downfall".

 

But Kurgan is correct when he talks about it being used as a mask type thing to hide peoples real agenda.

 

ahh anyway, its late, I'm getting confused now, I might give better answers in the morning.

 

 

wardz

 

[ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: wardz ]

[matt--]

Back on the volcano...

 

What I meant about the drilling to relieve stress, was that we can control where the eruption occurs. Besides that, I do believe I said we could have several drilling apparatuses to relieve the stress. Say, 20 openings. That could considerably reduce the techtonic stress, while avoiding casualties.

[Guest Kurgan]

Like I was saying, just in brief (I will get back to some of these other points later) religion isn't the primary reason.

 

So many nations don't hate the English for example, because the english are white, or protestant, it's because they were CONQUERERS or COLONIZERS at one point or another, they resent having their material goods taken away, ruined, or controlled by somebody else. The justification given for colonizing and conquering of those people by the English I'm sure was given as "we're white, they're not, we're Christian, they're not, we're human, they're not, we're civilized, they're not, etc etc etc" whatever you like. That's the point.

 

It wasn't the religion that DROVE the people to do evil things. They wanted to do the evil things and this was just another excuse to do it (as I said earlier). This is my theory and it seems to have more backing it than simply "religion causes wars" (as in "all religion" and "all war" is implied by your previous statements).

 

And again, there are plenty of religions that teach that killing is wrong period, no matter who you do it to, and many are outright pacificists. Again, there are Muslims who say that fighting is not the answer, and there are those who say that Jihad is to be waged against all unbelievers. There are Christians who have no problem killing people of other faiths, and there are those who abhor all violence and are vegetarians.

 

So again, it's illogical to say that religion itself is the problem. It would be more correct to say that "religion" appears to be one (of many) causes of SOME conflicts.

 

But I think the history has proven that most conflicts are primarily economically caused, not ideologically caused.

 

For example you might take Hitler in Germany in the 1930's. Sure, he had an ideology to make people want to support him (before he had power enough to simply force people to do things his way), but without the economic conditions that made people desperate and in search of a strong leader, he wouldn't have been able to get things done or see a vacuum to fill and rise to power. And it wasn't even his ideology, and previously, there were almost noone who had tried to use his ideology for mass slaughter and conquest.

 

Kurgan

[Guest Kurgan]

Okay, now that I have a bit (just a bit) of time, let me address your post in full.

 

And guys, let's try to be a bit more charitable in our discussion. I will, and I hope we all can. It's not like by discussing this stuff we're helping to bring about the end of humanity or anything, though it's a serious subject. Let's just keep that in mind. ; )

 

ok, I take that religious part back, well a part of it.

But there Is truth in my arguement, I should have phrased it better, for hundreds of years in Europe there was fighting because of religion, even today, the UK isn't allowed a catholic monarch due to all the fighting that took place many years ago,

 

Well TRUTH is a strong word, and you may see it as the truth, but I'm arguing that this is just your opinion, and I'm trying to show why my opinion, which differs, is not a LIE, but in fact based on something other than just me trying to just be argumentative.

Hope that makes sense. ; )

 

I would take your point about Catholics vs. Protestants and say it is about POWER. The King wants power and the Church (Pope) wants power, so they fight about it. The one that wins keeps the power, the one that loses is bitter about it. So fighting goes on.. Obviously that's putting it very simply and generally, but I think it makes more sense than saying "religion made them fight" (implying that if there was no religion, they wouldn't have fought).

 

Let's use the example of Henry VIII to illustrate this point. Now I'm not certified psychologist, but if I recall the central issue was that the King wanted a male heir. Not getting one with his current queen, he wanted to divorce her and remarry. The established Church said he couldn't do that, so he set himself up as the Church of England (now consider that Henry himself remained pretty much a faithful practicing Catholic even after that, other than of course his divorce and remarriage which was seen as a scandal by the Church). This caused resentment from the Church who had had their "power" seized and caused nobles to take sides.

 

Note that people who agreed with one side would essentially be changing their religion to support that one. Changing ones religion isn't always a conversion experience, there are plenty of examples in history of it being done purely for political reasons. So here too, it would not have to be just a matter of religion, otherwise all of the Catholics would have stayed Catholic and it would have just been a couple of people fighting against the whole country, etc.

 

I hope that makes more sense. I just don't see the theory that religion causes all wars (or all religion causes wars) to be true. In a generic sense you could list religion as ONE CAUSE (of many) to war, but then many things can lead to war, so it's really not saying anything about the unique badness or goodness of religion. Religion could be said just as easily to prevent war (or end war) as to cause it.

 

also, the UK among others waged many a war to wipe out the catholics and spread christianity throughout the world.

 

I'm not trying to belittle your knowledge of British history or anything at all. Not trying to dishonor the memories of anyone who suffered as a result of any of those conflicts. I know still today in many parts of Europe people are still mad and fighting about these things that happened centuries ago. Heck, in the states there is still some resentment about the civil war and we have violence occuring as a result of that. But it's not a key religious issue, is what I'm trying to get at.

 

Anyway, I think might not be as stupid as you make out, there is a history of different ethnic origins in my family, especially after the World Wars.

 

I don't think you're stupid, I just disagree with your opinion on religon and war, and TO ME it sounds like you don't have all the facts, as to me it doesn't seem at all that this is the case (that religion is the primary cause of war, or that religion causes war at all in general).

 

I am quite happy to get into a debate kurgan, but dont make it into an arguement.

 

I forget the difference.. but if you mean you want a civil discussion that doesn't involve flaming, etc, then I'm all for that, and I was kind of hoping that's what we were having already. I guess some words could toned down so they don't sound quite so passionate. I just want to get a point across, but I'm interested in hearing your ideas too.

 

no, I live in the most successful multi-cultural society in the world, the UK is much more diverse than anywhere else you will find, especially as we are only a small nation and it is You that is making the arrogant and naive assumptions now.

 

Note, that I never said that "My country is more diverse than your's" or "My country is better than your's." Being culturally diverse or culturally homogenius has nothing to do with what I was arguing.

 

Yes, my point was that differences are used as an excuse for conflict, does not mean I was saying difference CAUSES conflict. Otherwise I'd be forced to say that the reason the UK has such a checkered past is because people are so different there. No, I did not mean that at all.

 

I mean that if somebody wants to go to war, they will dig up ANY excuse they want to justify it. Nobody just goes to war, they make up some excuse to make it easier. It could be race, ethnicity, language, religion, culture, ideas, ANYTHING, so long as it helps them do what they were going to do anyway.

 

By your statement that religion causes war, it implies that there is SOMETHING IN THE BELIEF SYSTEM ITSELF that tells people that they need to wage war against others, and that THIS programs people, who would otherwise NOT FIGHT to fight, just because of this. I was saying that was not true.

 

Yes, there are parts of the Bible and the Koran that seem to be saying that God allows his followers to wage war and kill their enemies, but people who subscribe to these works as holy and authoritative have DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of what those mean. Even those who admit that their book does condone killing don't all actually go out and kill. The Quakers believe the Bible just as much as other Christians, but they don't believe in fighting.

 

I never said it was, you did.

 

Muslim vs. Jew was just an example I was making, because that is something everybody knows about (Palestinian vs. Israeli fighting in the middle east, and antagonisms with other "arab" countries in that area). It is a case where there is an obvious religious difference, and some are inclined to label it a religious conflict, which is why I mentioned it.

 

That is how it is now, but it was religion that fuelled the war in the first place.

 

Okay, tell me how this is so. What part of the religious faith of the first group caused it to go to war, and what part of the religion of the second group caused it to fight back. Thanks.

 

My uncle went to Northern Ireland in the Eighties and was nearly killed several times simply because the Catholics hate the Protestants.

 

Well my first question is, what is your father's ethnic background. On the one hand if he is not related, then yes, it would appear to be a religious issue. But I think one could just as easily use this example to counter that (and no offense to your father at all, I couldn't visit Israel last year because of the threat to life and limb).

 

There have been cases in the past (I think it was the 70's if I recall) where black Africans visiting the united states were attacked and beat up by whites, because they were THOUGHT to be American blacks.

 

Now you might say that it was race that was the factor, but it was a case of mistaken identity. The people involved had no quarrel with Africans (in fact in most cases Africans were respected, while American Blacks were held in disdain). They were mad at blacks because they saw them as contributing to crime, lowering property value, being lazy, etc. Africans were just foreign tourists that were interesting to talk to.

 

So it may have been that your father's religion was not the issue, but that it was percieved that he was part of the group that had "wronged" the attacking group, and this was a way to lash out at them, by attacking him. I might be wrong, but that's how I would see it, on the information given.

 

Basically what i was saying in a broad sense was that if we had no religion then some of the aggro could be cut out although I could have phrased it a little better.

 

My point was I totally disagree, since the entire premise of my argument is that aggression is based on our DESIRES, not on our beliefs. If we want to rob somebody, we feel like giving ourselves and excuse, so we don't feel so bad about it (or to help convince people to support our idea), so we twist or invent other things to our goal (like religion). So religion really, when it comes down to it, is not a determinant AT ALL.

 

I would say that if you took away religion, yes, it would remove that as an excuse for violenc (it would also remove that as an "excuse" to oppose violence, btw), it would not change a thing in regards to how violent people are. Yes, I know many people say that if you take away the bible people will get more violent. It's true that religion gives many people a reason for living in a chaotic world. And it can encourage social order. And there are a few examples of it causeing people to kill themselves (suicide cults for example) though this is fairly small compared to the majority of believers who do not kill themselves because their religion told them to. And there are religions that 'cause' people to overthrow governments (many of the so-called "strict Muslim" countries of today are the results of militant muslims fighting against what they saw as injustice.

 

Maybe it's pessimistic (and I consider myself something of an optimist) but I doubt we'll EVER get rid of war completely. Maybe it's ingrained in us to fight. I think we should try our darndest to RESIST the urge to kill, but I don't think it will ever go away entirely, because people won't suddenly stop being greedy and/or selfish for all time (though that would sure be nice), so we'll just think of other reasons to kill each other and take what we want from them.

 

Some people will use their values with their religion to say that war is WRONG and will be pacificists. In various wars we've had, in the States religious groups have protested and refused to participate. But in those same wars, and even people within their SAME TRADITION they have supported the war, using their religion.

 

And take an issue like slavery of blacks in the US. Some protestants took the bible and said "God doesn't have a problem with slavery" and other protestants, using the same bible said "God abhors slavery" and they are worshipping the SAME GOD and reading the SAME BOOK. So then I'd be forced to conclude (and since you can't just say some of them weren't "true protestants" or something) that they had OTHER reasons for thinking that slavery should be kept than religion.

 

You're free to disagree, I'm just telling you why I don't feel your conclusions are valid, because it is dealing with a side issue, not the main issue, which I see as the root cause: greed/selfishness.

 

When I said naive in that sense I was referring to the notion that you SEEMED (to me) to be pushing the idea that if we just got rid of religion, there'd be no more war, all our problems would go away, etc.

 

In the last century various atheist intellectuals have longed for the day when religion went away (and some Deists going back another century or so longing for the day when "revealed institutional religion" went away). When mankind was more "enlightened." But history has shown that non-religious people can be just as brutal and nasty as religious people (pick any Chinese or Russian dictator you want), and we have examples (Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, etc) of people who were TOTALLY AGAINST VIOLENCE and were deeply religious people, devoted to their individual creeds.

 

The people who predicted "religion" would have died out by the end of the 20th century were (of course) mistaken, the majority of the human race still claims to follow some religion (4 out of 6 billion). And of course only half of that remaining 2 billion actually claim to be atheists.

 

I would argue that in an atheist dominated world, we'd have just as much fighting and chaos, people would just give different reasons for it than they do now (hard to test that, but I think on a war by war basis you will agree that it's pretty likely).

 

I enjoy these discussions buts lets be tolerant to each other's views, okay?

 

I agree, and I'm really trying here, it's not the easiest thing, but I'm at least trying.

 

So no offense intended (you admitted your jab at religion was probably going to be offensive, which was good of you, and I was just telling you how I disagreed).

 

Kurgan

 

[ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Guest Kurgan]

To answer the question of the original poster, and considering subsequent responses, I'd say YES, we should safeguard our species.

 

We SHOULD try to stop killing each other and causing undue suffering to each other. We should try to be responsible with our remaining resources and research ways to prevent future disasters.

 

Whether or not we can totally wipe ourselves out (I believe it's possible), I think anyone can admit we are capable of doing a LOT OF DAMAGE.

 

So far the worst tragedy in human history that I can think of (although that volcane thing sounds pretty bad, I wish I had more facts on it, help?) was the Black Death (Bubonic Plague) which killed some 25 million people, totally changing the face of europe. And considering how many people were alive at that time in that region, that's an awful lot of misery and damage.

 

Somebody like Joseph Stalin killed 25 million people in his lifetime, as a dictator, and Hitler killed about 12 million in a relatively short period as well.

 

So I think we should be careful and try to prevent such a thing from happening. We're just as dead from a bomb or a gun as from an asteroid or a comet. Either way, we should try to come up with something.

 

Kurgan

[Wilhuf]

The US has come up with something. To combat disease, starvation, natural disasters, and war are CDC, USAID, FEMA, and DoD, as I've said. And of course there are countless nongovernmental organizations that address these issues. Other countries with the wherewithal have similar institutions.

 

I don't know whether that there is really any plan in place to deal with comet or asteroid impact, although FEMA would certainly have to deal with the consequence. When I ran a search for 'asteroid' at FEMA all I found were stories on recent Hollywood disaster films. Either FEMA is not thinking about asteroids, they have concluded there is no reason to think about them, or it simply isn't their department.

 

[ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[WD_ToRMeNt]

You all seem very optimistic, I'd say to optimistic. BTW, religion is one of the most common causes for war/violence. The crusades, world trade center bombing, the 5 or 6 wars between isreal and the surounding arab states (and the current violence with the palistinians), northern Ireland.... and those are just a few examples.

[Guest Kurgan]

Funny you should mention that Torment. ; )

 

My response is a few short posts above your's.

 

I won't try to explain terrorism, but I will say that it involves hurting your enemies through fear (terror, hence the name) so it really has little to do with religion and is just another facet of war (perhaps less a "hot" war and more of a cold war or gurrellia war).

 

This wouldn't be an issue if it were atheists fighting atheists, but I think it's unfair to call everything a "religiously motivated" conflict just because the people in it happen to claim to be part of a certain tradition. See my earlier posts.

 

Most violence comes in the form of crime, which is caused by many factors. In addition to poverty (desperation), drugs, and civil unrest caused by unjust rule, there is also the factor of simple greed (like drug gangs killing to protect their territory, people killing political rivals for power, etc). And most crime has nothing to do with religion. After all, most religions will tell you it's wrong to murder and to steal.

 

Kurgan

 

[ August 26, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[WD_ToRMeNt]

Welp religion does play a huge part in several modern hotspots. The islamic jihad (terrorist group) believes the united states to be immoral and against islam. The actions of benladden and others do have religious motivation. Same idea in northern ireland. I mean really, they're the same ethnic group, speak the same language, have a common history, but what sepperates them? One group is Catholic, the other protestant.

 

Religion is a very emotional and person subject to many people, it's not hard for a spark to cause a flame.

 

Look, organized religion does some good things, but it also it's also another way for humans to divide themselves and say "im differant" from the next guy.

 

It's a great idea, compassion, understanding, unity. It won't ever happen on a global scale. Humans love to to define themselves by the way they are differant, draw lines of race, nation, and religion, state, county, gender, age, city, sports team, the list goes on. Humanity will never achieve unity.

[Dante1587246514]

personally i think humanity has almost come to the end of its road...evolution is funny like that...and while we are adaptable we arent super human...i mean look at the 1950's/60's we thought we had wiped out diseases like tuberculosis but now apparently we're experiencing a bit of a remergence as the disease has adapted to what was decades of research in the space of a couple of years...and this new strain isnt responding to treatment even with improved techniques...so the comment that ebola or something close could wipe us out is valid...and lest not forget that more countries in the world have nuclear capabilities than during the cold war...

[GonkH8er]

well ebola in its current state wouldnt exactly wipe us out with the greatest of ease. it may very well be one of the most dangerous viruses known to mankind, but it's not the easiest thing to catch. if there was an outbreak in a major city, im fairly sure it would be quite easy to contain.

 

but it is evolving, and noone can say how long it will be before we see a real example of the potential lethality of it. my guess is it wont be anytime too soon though. i'd say we have more reason to be worried about biological weapons that countries are developing right under our noses. i have a strange feeling that within the next 7 years we'll see a large scale bioterrorist attack of some sort. dont ask me why. i get these funny premonitions sometimes. im gonna shut up now.

[wardz]

Kurgan, i have got to go in a minute so i cant give a detailed explanation.

 

The uncle in Northern Ireland, he was in the British Army, i omitted that part, and didn't check it afterwards. What I was saying was that the Catholics hate the Protetants and some terrorsts on EITHER side have used that to wage war against each other, like you said using it as a mask type thing.

 

 

Religion is a thorny subject at the best of times.

 

Thankyou for repsecting my points and I now fully respect yours,

 

cheers K

 

wardz

[StormHammer]

Kurgan, the best place to find out more about Super Volcanos is by following the link I posted...aww hell, here it is again...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/supervolcanoes.shtml

 

There is a link to a full transcript of the programme that was shown on TV, plus a link to other sites, including Yellowstone park itself, which has a map detailing recent seismological events.

 

As I stated above, the estimated size of a super-volcano explosion is an order of magnitude 10,000 times greater than that of the Mt. St. Helens eruption. I don't believe this event would be of the same magnitude as the cometary impact 65 million years ago - after all, if Yellowstone is on a 600,000 year cycle, we should have had a mass extinction every 600,000 years.

 

Nevertheless, the common concensus is that North America will have an extremely bad day, and the global consequences will be far-reaching. The key problem will be the amount of ash that is jetted into the atmosphere, and how far this will cause the planet's temperature to fall.

 

Another Ice Age is a distinct possibility - which would lead to immense conflict as species are displaced from their homes and are forced to share a narrow band of ice-free land around the equator.

 

Suffice it to say that our current way of life would probably cease, and as someone else suggested, we could potentially return to the Stone Age.

 

The only plus side is that if there ever was an island called Atlantis, we might get to see it again as the sea level falls.

 

As far as viruses are concerned - well they've mostly been around as long as we have, or longer. We're still here. The reason why we're still here is because some of us are naturally resistant to certain viral strains. If you think about it, we are all carriers of various things, and when we come into contact with susceptible people, they catch it and get sick.

 

If there is a mass viral outbreak along the lines of the Black Death, I don't think it will wipe us out. Those who have immunities will survive - in a way, it will be survival of the fittest.

 

Besides, as Wilhuf has indicated, there are organisations in place now to deal with such eventualities, and though the cost in human life may be high, it will probably not lead to a mass extinction, IMO.

 

I think the comment about developing underwater communities is a valid one, because if there is any place on Earth that is not really affected by the absence of sunlight, it is the deeps of the ocean. Life still thrives down there, sometimes in total darkness, so there is certainly an argument to start utilising these untapped reources - as long as we learn to replenish what we use, and think of the long-term consequences.

[Syndrix]

....as long as we learn to replenish what we use, and think of the long-term consequences.

 

StormHammer, its funny that you should type that on the end of that paragraph. Its exactly the same thing I thought when I first read about utilizing the waters of earth. Really, humans dont often think long term (at least not the ones in positions to change things), and even when they do they aren't really thinking "long term".

[Wilhuf]

It's a great idea, compassion, understanding, unity. It won't ever happen on a global scale. Humans love to to define themselves by the way they are differant, draw lines of race, nation, and religion, state, county, gender, age, city, sports team, the list goes on.

 

Sure, not on a global scale, but there are some immigrant countries (the US and Canada, for instance) in this world that do actively welcome all cultures and religions, and celebrate their differences.

 

Not that the US and Canada have perfect domestic intercultural relations, but at least they are not dropping nuke test bombs in some kind of nationalist anti foreigner fervor. And of course by and large if you come to either of these countries you'll be free to practice your religion.

[Guest Kurgan]

Well Catholicism teaches that murdering people is a sin, and last I checked, so does Protestantism (all of the denominations I know of).

 

So then the fighting between them is in VIOLATION (not in agreement with) of their religions. So how can religion then be the cause?

 

If my religion teaches that eating beef is a grievous sin, and I go out on a cow eating spree, am I obeying my religion, or disregarding it? So then could you logically say that because I was a Hindu, that Hinduism caused the cow killing?

 

Read my above posts Torment, and I explain why I think it's far more logical to assign other things to the cause of war. As I see it religion is sometimes used as an extra excuse to wage war, but it is practically never (if ever) the root cause.

 

As far as Bin Laden and others, there are many Muslims who teach that what Jihad is is the inner struggle (which is greater than any actual "holy war"). It is a war against your own demons, your passions and temptations to offend God. So they would frown on murdering people.

 

And what about actual Jihad fighting? According to the Koran, war is to be used when all other efforts to resolve the problem have failed. Fighting in self defense is permissable in Islam, according to the religion.

 

Now if somebody who is nominally Muslim decides to just go on a killing spree on some civilians and say it's for the Glory of God, does that mean that Islam caused him to kill?

 

The same thing could be said about the Crusades (another complicated issue). The original point of the Crusades was to free the Holy Land (Jerusalem) from Muslim influence (the Turks, who invaded) and protect pilgrims who were being harassed there. On the way Crusaders got the idea that it was okay to kill anybody who got in their way, because God wills it. But Jesus taught that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

 

Terrorists again have their motivations. Let's say that the US attacks or invades some Muslim country, or affects them in some way that they consider negative (like making them change their laws or controlling their elections). The terrorist may think to himself "my comrades back home are in trouble, I must help them out, so I will sow confusion and terror in the homeland of the enemy" so he goes to the US and blows up something.

 

Now I don't condone his actions, but it makes sense if you're a soldier and you think you're fighting the enemy. It has nothing to do with religion. Note that there are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, etc in the US and in each religion there are multiple variations, denominations, interpretations (even though the US is still primarily Protestant Christian, but with no established church). Each one is different.

 

Two Muslims from different countries are likely to practice VERY DIFFERENTLY. So it's not like it can just be boiled down to one religion vs. another.

 

Again, I think I address all of your concerns, if you read my post, and review it thoughtfully, I think you'll see where I'm coming from. If you still don't agree, that's fine, I just hope you see my side as well.

 

wardz, that would TOTALLY make sense to me then. It would be like if somebody who was an ex-PLO soldier went to visit some friends of his who lived in Israel, and some Israeli soldiers tried to kill them.

 

It wouldn't matter what religion he was, just that he was percieved as the enemy, through his association (between warring factions).

 

In a similar way, during WWII, the United States moved many Americans of Japanese ancestry to internment camps. Was it because they were Taoist/Buddhist? No, it was because they were suspected of being spies/sympathizers for Japan (who the US was at war with). Now whether this was just or not, one can see the reasoning of the US at that time. It wasn't about religion at all. And I'm sure some of these people were also Christians.

 

There is a book I read a bit of, that explained that there were also a few internment camps for Americans of German ancestry as well. So the same premises could be applied. And many more of them would have been Christian (Lutheran, Catholic, etc).

 

Now there are cases, I should point out, where terrorists have seemed to just hurt 'innocent' people that appeared to have done nothing to offend them.

 

Other than the obvious concept of getting national attention for the cause by doing a public act of violence, there is another simple explanation: that is just another military tactic.

 

For example in a war, sometimes civilians are killed intentionally (almost always civilians are killed accidentally of course).

 

What is the point? Obviously this is frowned upon by people who would support the Geneva convention etc (and something I would condemn as well) but the reason that it is done is because it shows the enemy that you are RUTHLESS (to encourage them to surrender) and it also hurts their morale.

 

Of course on the opposite side, doing such a thing may encourage your enemy ("these monsters killed innocent people.. they must pay!").

 

War is dirty, but people do all kinds of terrible things in the name of winning (and why do we fight? almost always for economic reasons).

 

War is about dehumanizing your enemy, so you can justify killing them without mercy.

 

Thanks, I'm glad we can debate civily without taking it personally, that's the whole point. : )

 

Kurgan

 

[ August 26, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Guest Kurgan]

Btw, for those interested, here are some links (this is not meant to be advertising) that might be useful.

 

 

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-keywords=marc%20ellis&bq=1/ref=aps_more_b_1/104-9096487-7107127">Marc Ellis</a> and his writings.

 

I haven't had a chance to read all of his books, but I do own one, and have had a chance to hear him speak on the Palestinian vs. Israeli conflict, as well as on the issues of Jews and Christians and their relation to each other and the politics of Israel. Very interesting stuff.

 

Here is also a link to the writings of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-keywords=oscar%20romero&bq=1/ref=aps_more_b_1/104-9096487-7107127">Oscar Romero</a> an Archbishop in El Salvador who spoke out against the violence that occured around him.

 

Here are some books by and on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-keywords=dorothy%20day&bq=1/ref=aps_more_b_1/104-9096487-7107127">Mahatma Ghandi</a> who led peaceful resistence against violence and oppression.

 

Here are some of the writings of and about <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-keywords=martin%20luther%20king&bq=1/ref=aps_more_b_1/104-9096487-7107127">Martin Luther King Jr.</a> who also preached non-violence in the face of racial injustice.

 

Here are some books on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-keywords=dorothy%20day&bq=1/ref=aps_more_b_1/104-9096487-7107127">Dorothy Day</a> who reached out to the poor and the marginalized in society.

 

------------------------------

There are many others of course, but these are some good sources on religious people who preached and taught opposition to violence, but also advocated positive social change through other means.

 

Kurgan

 

[ August 26, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]