MegaGlest Forum
Off topic => Off topic => Topic started by: Gabbe on 2 August 2010, 13:58:48
-
When will we go to Mars? When will we reach Aproxima Centari? Will there be a nuclear war before that? What will be the next breakthrough after the internet? (please no joke responses, more like, real answers.. what you think..uhm philosophy..)
-
2 August 2010
ESA and NASA have selected the scientific instruments for their first joint Mars mission. Scheduled for 2016, it will study the chemical makeup of the martian atmosphere, including methane. Discovered in 2003, methane could point to life on the Red Planet.
-
wow, todays news. But are you sure that will be accomplished? There is some heavy solar radiation out there.. ::)
-
The solar radiation is out there since the very beginning. They must have found some solution by now.
-
The future of humanity is:
breakfast, work, die
in moment it looks like life will be more boring cus robots will work
-
The future of humanity is:
breakfast, work, die
in moment it looks like life will be more boring cus robots will work
I would say that you NEED to get yourself a better life :)
-
The future of humanity: Pay taxes.
-
The future of humanity is:
breakfast, work, die
in moment it looks like life will be more boring cus robots will work
I would say that you NEED to get yourself a better life :)
hehe... ;D
The future of humanity: Pay taxes.
hehe... :(
-
Ok but seriously, were are we in 100 years?
-
nowhere, NASA is closing all space flights for the time being, and our technology has not advanced significantly in the past 10-30 years :P :P, the only thing I can imagine happening is another world war :-X
-
nowhere, NASA is closing all space flights for the time being,
2 August 2010
ESA and NASA have selected the scientific instruments for their first joint Mars mission. Scheduled for 2016, it will study the chemical makeup of the martian atmosphere, including methane. Discovered in 2003, methane could point to life on the Red Planet.
I think the US will go down, along with southern europe and china will go up along with brazil and northern europe, EU will be non existant and India and China will be in a war, unless they decide to both go on the US. We`ll probably have the planned moon base along with having someone walked on Mars. Getting new energy sources, all southern countries have gotten technology to aquire energy from the sun, the north and south pole have oil platforms all over and Russia will invade Scandinavia because the US isn`t there to protect us. Also the terrorists will probably walk right into europe and crush NATO along with other institutions. The UK will also probably fall due to bad economy and there will be no longer a rich western world.
-
Well, we might all die before these events. :|
The future is the future...It's what we do about it, and others...
-
All of Europe is gonna collapse completely, and its possible that the US, India and China will go the same way, not sure about russia but also going down, the middle east and africa is gonna be screwed up as it has been and the only place thats doing good and might have a nice future is Brazil, I think theres gonna be a WW3, cuz WW2 started after a large deppression.
-
The only thing you can predict with 100% chance is that everything will happen except the things people post in this topic.
AMEN
-
The only thing you can predict with 100% chance is that everything will happen except the things people post in this topic.
AMEN
:P I'd say that is at least or around "half right" :P
-
its possible futures..
-
its possible futures..
Yeah, anything is possible...but some are not.
Man, no offense, but you keep making this forum like a chatting room place... :|
Or is it just you...
-
Zombie Apocalypse. (http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html)
-
well it is possible if all those "scientific facts" are true :)
-
well it is possible if all those "scientific facts" are true :)
Ah, maybe. Those facts are more like theories though, only a few are facts. :|
-
Zombie Apocalypse. (http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html)
LOL I find most of that hard to believe to say the least, though things like brain parasites exist, they don't control they just kill the brain and you die and of story
-
omg how old r u ultifd, I got 100 years left :P
-
omg how old r u ultifd, I got 100 years left :P
... Well damm, how does it feel to be at a "negative age" :P
Considering if you passed away from old age around the age of 90.
Jk...
-
uhm.... (oh no gawd ultis gonna kill me before i get 100!!) no srsly, being -14 is well, it is like living in a bag yknow...im not born yet...
-
When will we go to Mars? When will we reach Aproxima Centari? Will there be a nuclear war before that?
Really those all depend on whether people can get along better than they have been. Countries as a whole need to behave less like primitive, bellicose states and more like twenty-first century nations. It also depends on what type of people are put in positions of power.
-
If you think about it, war should be a thing of the past now. We should be getting the most intelligent people of the world to be leading us, who could resolve issues without even the thought of violence.
But no.
We get war-hunger money-grabbers, things are so corrupt but people in charge are too afraid to change anything or try something new because of fear of loosing power.
Money is the worst thing to happen in the world, surely we could teach people to give and exchange out of kindness not greediness?
-
Yeah i heard this guy said something about that there was type 1-2-3 civilisations and we are type 0, and that from 0-1 is the most dangerous phase. I think that we should collapse the US canada china japan and Europe, the only countries that have a chance of standing this test and use all of their/our technologies.
If you think about it, war should be a thing of the past now. We should be getting the most intelligent people of the world to be leading us, who could resolve issues without even the thought of violence.
But no.
We get war-hunger money-grabbers, things are so corrupt but people in charge are too afraid to change anything or try something new because of fear of loosing power.
Money is the worst thing to happen in the world, surely we could teach people to give and exchange out of kindness not greediness?
I shouldn`t but the worst war out there is the one with Islam, and well, they are fighting a "cosmic battle" with the "muslim forces against the christian forces" and that is maybe...religion..but i should probably not bring that up..
-
TL:DR, only read the first page.
I think we will eventually reach alpha (dang, I can't spell it, never could, and dont wanna look it up) but I am not sure about HUMANS reaching it. If I recall, there are 2 space shuttles that were launched which have both cleared the Termination Shock, but not sure if they are heading in the right direction. Their goal, I believe, was to search for life. As for humans on alpha centari (? am I close enough?), we'd need something like Civ4 has, with a statis chambers to prevent aging, because no humans could possibly survive reaching their with current shuttle speeds, and I doubt we could ever travel light speed (we still would take years at lightspeed). Even if they go there though, there's no guarentee of life, or even survivable planets.
As for a possibility of a nuclear war, I dunno, but I should hope not. At the moment, the world is in pretty much a stalemate. Every country knows that if they fire a nuke, they face getting nuked themselves. However, all it takes is one wiseguy (get smart, anyone?)... Also, it does raise a problem that terrorists who serve no country could use a nuke, and it would be difficult to retaliate since Nukes ALWAYS kill more innocents than intended targets. Humanity has had 2 nuclear explosions (not counting numerous tests) which each killed many civilians and few military personals (I never condoned US's nuclear attack on Japan, whether or not it made Japan surrender, because of the sheer horror of what the Nukes did). And advancements in technology have made nuclear bombs much much more powerful, easily capable of taking out a whole city, and leaving it a radiation wasteland for years.
Humanities future is impossible to predict, so I won't try to. Whether the future will be good or bad, nobody can say, though let's look at a few things:
It took thousands of years to go from the wheel to the automobile, but barely half a century to go from the automobile to space travel.
Some of the most deadly conflicts occured in the past 100 years. The two world wars caused more casuallities than any other, and they were using primitive technology. Imagine a world war today with nuclear bombs, jet fighters, advanced tanks, and more. Weapons have evolved to the point of being so deadly that it makes one wonder if a world war would whipe out humanity as we know it.
I can't recall who, but someone said "I don't know what world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones".
-
(I never condoned US's nuclear attack on Japan, whether or not it made Japan surrender, because of the sheer horror of what the Nukes did)
You very obviously are under-educated about WWII.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/World_War_II_Casualties2.svg/800px-World_War_II_Casualties2.svg.png)
The most well-known Japanese atrocity was the Nanking Massacre, in which several hundred thousand Chinese civilians were raped and murdered.[269] The Japanese military murdered from nearly 3 million to over 10 million civilians, mostly Chinese.
and leaving it a radiation wasteland for years
Go look at a picture of Hiroshima before we dropped the bomb and a picture of what it looks like today.
Nobodies perfect, that is why we have war, peace is a child's fantasy.
Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace". :|
Gotta eat now, see ya.
-
Nobodies perfect, that is why we have war, peace is a child's fantasy.
Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace". No Opinion
Gotta eat now, see ya.
Peace is child's fantasy????? sorry but reading that makes me dizzy. War is for stupid, irrational people. Nothing is worth killing for. I don't see how you could see that differently.
Giving people power to harm other people, does not create peace. I can see how you think a dictatorship is peace though. Power just gets in the way of what is right.
-
Peace is child's fantasy????? sorry but reading that makes me dizzy. War is for stupid, irrational people.
BINGO!
There are a lot of stupid, irrational people.
Giving people power to harm other people, does not create peace.
It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.
Nothing is worth killing for.
Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?
I can see how you think a dictatorship is peace though.
When did I ever say that? :|
-
BINGO!
There are a lot of stupid, irrational people.
Your being pessimistic, which isn't rational....... you're not helping :>|
It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.
That's not peace at all. Thousands of people kill, hatred and devastation might not be as peaceful as you think.
Peace equals living in harmony.
Peace does not equal, not living at all.
Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?
Haven't you heard of talking? Coming to a reasonable conclusion is a much better resolve IMO.
When did I ever say that? No Opinion
|
|
|
V
Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace". No Opinion
Having control is NOT peace.
-
I support Arch in this, I believe that there will always be some idiot who will want to rule everyone so we must have a strong army as a detterent. In WW2, do you know how the russians would have ended up if they had surrendered, they would have been enslaved or eradicated by the nazis, but instead they fought back and smashed the nazis. Or look at israel, they could be at peace with their enemies but their neighbors don't want peace they want to kill them all, so obviously israel must keep a strong army as a safeguard
-
World peace is a nice idea and it's something to strive for, but I don't see it happening. Humanity is just too corrupt, hateful, and selfish to ever get along. The day we have world peace is the day all life is wiped out. Still, we should be trying to get along as best as we can. Just because you can't achieve the ideal doesn't mean you shouldn't try to achieve improvement.
-
Quote
BINGO!
There are a lot of stupid, irrational people.
Your being pessimistic, which isn't rational....... you're not helping :>|
My pessimism is a lot more rational than you're childish optimism. No offense.
Quote
It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.
That's not peace at all. Thousands of people kill, hatred and devastation might not be as peaceful as you think.
Peace equals living in harmony.
Peace does not equal, not living at all.
Well, the Japanese stopped fighting after the nuke, they stopped "disturbing harmony", so I'd call that peace by your definition. :|
Quote
Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?
Haven't you heard of talking? Coming to a reasonable conclusion is a much better resolve IMO.
A conclusion to a terrorist means everyone who isn't faithful to Allah, loses their head. ::) So all the terrorist wants is you gone, and his bomb will do that, talking is bad for him because that will delay the launch of his bomb. :|
Quote
When did I ever say that? No Opinion
|
|
|
V
Quote
Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace". No Opinion
Uh.......what does that have to do with dictatorship.
Having control is NOT peace.
I guess you believe that anarchy is peace then?
I support Arch in this, I believe that there will always be some idiot who will want to rule everyone so we must have a strong army as a detterent. In WW2, do you know how the russians would have ended up if they had surrendered, they would have been enslaved or eradicated by the nazis, but instead they fought back and smashed the nazis. Or look at israel, they could be at peace with their enemies but their neighbors don't want peace they want to kill them all, so obviously israel must keep a strong army as a safeguard
Good points. :)
World peace is a nice idea and it's something to strive for, but I don't see it happening. Humanity is just too corrupt, hateful, and selfish to ever get along. The day we have world peace is the day all life is wiped out. Still, we should be trying to get along as best as we can. Just because you can't achieve the ideal doesn't mean you shouldn't try to achieve improvement.
I agree.
-
World peace is a nice idea and it's something to strive for, but I don't see it happening. Humanity is just too corrupt, hateful, and selfish to ever get along. The day we have world peace is the day all life is wiped out. Still, we should be trying to get along as best as we can. Just because you can't achieve the ideal doesn't mean you shouldn't try to achieve improvement.
I think John hit it dead on. We all WANT peace, and it is very good, but as he said, humanity is simply to corrupt to ever achieve peace. Still, it's good to have at least as much peace as possible.
(I never condoned US's nuclear attack on Japan, whether or not it made Japan surrender, because of the sheer horror of what the Nukes did)
You very obviously are under-educated about WWII.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/World_War_II_Casualties2.svg/800px-World_War_II_Casualties2.svg.png)
Not at all. I've seen that exact chart before. Unfortunately, russia lost many civilians due to starving, not to mention Germany invaded it. China lost tons because the Japanese came and killed them all. I'm not saying that they were good guys, but its still terrible to attack civilians. Looking at modern times, we notice how NATO countries do not condone civilian casualities in the world's current war zones, namely afghanistan. It happens yes, but we're there to protect the civilians while fighting the Taliban. Of course, we also notice how they don't condone killing an unarmed or injured Taliban fighter. Recently, a canadian soldier was in court because he killed an injured Taliban fighter (though I personally don't agree with that, because the guy WAS a Taliban fighter, and wouldn't have spared the soldier were the even the opposite way, as well, the Taliban soldier was injured, so one could look at it as even a mercy killing).
-
I don't really know if dropping the nukes was a good course of action or not. I've heard some good arguments saying that there would have been even more people killed by a long drawn-out land invasion, but I don't think there's really any way to know what might have been.
-
I don't really know if dropping the nukes was a good course of action or not. I've heard some good arguments saying that there would have been even more people killed by a long drawn-out land invasion, but I don't think there's really any way to know what might have been.
There's no real way to know, though I still think that dropping a nuke (or two) was a terrible thing to do.
IMO, it would have caused more military deaths, but less civilian deaths (why? Because, the general reaction of civilians is to run away. Military? Towards.). However, I'm not sure whether or not the second world war had conscription... I know the first did (at least for Canada) and would assume the second probably did too... Would vary per country, of course.
But really, we could see how much damage the atomic bombs did (though they rebuilt the cities) but now imagine the atomic bombs of today. They aren't the untried, prototypes of the '40s, but rather much, much more powerful! I think that they would have had no problem whiping out the entire city were they to have the technology of today... Imagine if all of a sudden Washington DC was gone? How would that cripple a country?
###Question for the more experienced, I'm curious, is there any working method of taking out missile's in flight? (such as an ICBM)
-
Nobodies perfect, that is why we have war, peace is a child's fantasy.
Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace". :|
"Nobody's perfect" is an excuse for war. Pacifists are not dangerous people, but pacifism may be immoral in some situations. Still, they are nowhere near the "most dangerous" groups.
And about developing nukes, no one educated in game theory would be opposed to developing them. Dropping them, though, is a different story. Consider what you think the US military's role is, and you have your answer. If you consider it only to be of US citizens' protection, then dropping it wasn't so bad.
-
I don't really know if dropping the nukes was a good course of action or not. I've heard some good arguments saying that there would have been even more people killed by a long drawn-out land invasion, but I don't think there's really any way to know what might have been.
There's no real way to know, though I still think that dropping a nuke (or two) was a terrible thing to do.
IMO, it would have caused more military deaths, but less civilian deaths (why? Because, the general reaction of civilians is to run away. Military? Towards.). However, I'm not sure whether or not the second world war had conscription... I know the first did (at least for Canada) and would assume the second probably did too... Would vary per country, of course.
But really, we could see how much damage the atomic bombs did (though they rebuilt the cities) but now imagine the atomic bombs of today. They aren't the untried, prototypes of the '40s, but rather much, much more powerful! I think that they would have had no problem whiping out the entire city were they to have the technology of today... Imagine if all of a sudden Washington DC was gone? How would that cripple a country?
###Question for the more experienced, I'm curious, is there any working method of taking out missile's in flight? (such as an ICBM)
It can be taken out with another anti missile missile and I would like to point out that japanese civilians would not have fled but would have instead jumped under allied tanks with dynamite. also the damage by the atomic bombs was actually less then what was caused by several of the US firebombing raids. I think it was the right thing and it saved countless lives on both sides.
"Nobody's perfect" is an excuse for war. Pacifists are not dangerous people, but pacifism may be immoral in some situations. Still, they are nowhere near the "most dangerous" groups.
And about developing nukes, no one educated in game theory would be opposed to developing them. Dropping them, though, is a different story. Consider what you think the US military's role is, and you have your answer. If you consider it only to be of US citizens' protection, then dropping it wasn't so bad.
Actually pacifists can be very dangerous at times, imagine if we had remained pacifists in WW2 what do you think would have happened. And actually the fact that nobody's perfect means that it is often just one person(Adolf Hitler for example) that causes a war. The others might want peace but the only other option is destruction obviously pacifism has its flaws ::)
-
Actually pacifists can be very dangerous at times, imagine if we had remained pacifists in WW2 what do you think would have happened. And actually the fact that nobody's perfect means that it is often just one person(Adolf Hitler for example) that causes a war. The others might want peace but the only other option is destruction obviously pacifism has its flaws ::)
There's no real way to know what would have happened. Some country that took no sides in the world wars managed to escape basically unscathed. Others got pulled into the conflict because some one attacked them, and lastly, others were just in the wrong place, and the country would be turned into a battlefield.
Using the US for an example:
In world war 1, the US joined because the Germans were sinking passenger ships, which contained american civilians. In world war 2, they joined because the Japanese attacked pearl harbour.
-
Exactly and because theres always gonna be some violent persons were never gonna have peace. Also pacifism fails a lot too. For example britain and france were really scared of germany in 1938 and allowed it to occupy Sudetenland even though the Czech army was superior in technology and equipment and more then able to hold its own in the vast mountain defense system. When the germans occupied czechoslovakia they got nearly all the tanks of any worth that they would use in the first 2 years of the war until they finally produced enough of their own and even then they used these tanks to build tank hunters etc. In the end war wasn't avoided anyway through this pathetic pacifism and appeasement.
-
Exactly and because theres always gonna be some violent persons were never gonna have peace. Also pacifism fails a lot too. For example britain and france were really scared of germany in 1938 and allowed it to occupy Sudetenland even though the Czech army was superior in technology and equipment and more then able to hold its own in the vast mountain defense system. When the germans occupied czechoslovakia they got nearly all the tanks of any worth that they would use in the first 2 years of the war until they finally produced enough of their own and even then they used these tanks to build tank hunters etc. In the end war wasn't avoided anyway through this pathetic pacifism and appeasement.
Lemme guess, your a Czech. Only a proud citizen or person with relevant heritage would try to make a point while rambling like that. But I digress. (Actually, I didn't mind you discussing that, because I had not known the details in the past. I suppose here I will come away better informed.) You're right. Pacifism is better than war-mongering, but such absolutist morality cannot stand up in the face of true adversity. Only sheltered people can afford absolutist morality, and I am sheltered in that I have never had to choose between kill, be killed, or let someone else/multiple other people die. If I did, pacifism would probably fail to gain a hold in my head.
-
For me if it was kill or be killed I'd kill, and yes I'm am czech but thats not really the reason why I believe they could have held out against hitler. I have sources that support that. At any rate while I would rather not have any war and would usually support being pacifist. The cold hard truth is very different and if your not ready to defend yourself against the occasional madmen that want war and to obliterate you theres no option but to fight back. do you think osama bin laden won't kill you cuz your pacifist. Still know that I do wish the sorld was at peace.
-
Future of Humanity Issues:
Energy: Here is how I see it. The worlds oil reserves as we know them will be gone/unharvestable in less than 150 years. After that, we will have to use these energy sources:
Shale Oil-oil that is trapped within shale is extremely abundant in this world. It is, alas, more expensive to get. The reserves of shale oil could last over 2 centuries. Shale oil is likely to be popular because it does not force people to change their consumption mechanisms, just the mechanisms for harvesting. Oil could be between 5-10 US dollars a gallon, but that is unknown.
Hydroelectric-Already in place in many locales, this energy source is cleaner and renewable. Though it does require fast rivers and the destruction/remaking of river ecosystems, it does produce huge amounts of energy, and can be produced in most countries. One example is Hoover Dam.
Nuclear-Despite what environmentalists might claim, nuclear is actually one of the most efficient and viable sources of energy for some countries. For example, france has nuclear power plants producing the majority of its energy. Though when highly enriched it could be converted into the stuff of nukes, international treaties and strong watchdog groups can ensure that new nuclear bombs are not created.
Solar Power-windmills and solar panels will be inefficient and unpopular.
Gotta go, I will add to the list of future of humanity issues later.
-
I'm inclined to disagree with your point on solar energy. From what I've heard, solar cells are getting cheaper, more efficient, and more durable, and the sun isn't going anywhere until long after our species is a distant memory. Here at my university, we've got a solar car that runs without ever needing to be plugged in. Admittedly, it's not a full-sized car, and it's not terribly fast, but it certainly serves as an excellent proof of concept.
Source. (http://news.ucf.edu/UCFnews/index?page=article&id=00240041037381429012136c33d7900a55)
The solar panels convert the sun's energy into electricity that keeps the car's battery charged, even at night and on overcast or rainy days. Without the solar panels, the car would need to be plugged into an electrical outlet every 35 miles, for eight hours each day to recharge the battery.
"We've never plugged it in," said Norvell, whose office purchased the car in December and has since logged 1,600 miles.
-
I'm inclined to disagree with your point on solar energy. From what I've heard, solar cells are getting cheaper, more efficient, and more durable, and the sun isn't going anywhere until long after our species is a distant memory. Here at my university, we've got a solar car that runs without ever needing to be plugged in. Admittedly, it's not a full-sized car, and it's not terribly fast, but it certainly serves as an excellent proof of concept.
Not my point. I know that in the long term, solar power (wind or sun) will be the best solution, because vast swathes of land in wyoming, arizona and elsewhere in the united states (and in the world), which would normally be eyesores, can be covered with panels or turbines. The problem is, most people are unwilling to make commitments to solar because it takes up to 30 years and almost always at least 2 for a profit to be had. Places in europe are innovating, but in america, which is excessively committed to the short term, we are behind. It is certainly true that the fastest leaps in energy are taking place in solar, but it would be ignorant to a woeful degree to claim that they are likely to be common in this world anytime soon. Until then, alternative energy sources to this alternative energy source ( :D) will be the norm.
WW3:
If it is ever to occur, several powerful nations (those with Nukes) would have to forge alliances with each other and attack simultaneously. For this to ever be able to combat the western world, these nations would have to be both dictatorially controlled and nuclear armed. Iran and North Korea meet both criteria (though some claim Iran is not nuclear-armed). However, this war would not reach the united states or even western Europe, unless Russia and china were to aid the enemy party. High powered weapons and gear are already trickling out of the former USSR, and some speculate that its vast nuclear stockpile could begin to follow this trend. I read in Newsweek that several top pentagon officials have reached a consensus that there is over a 50% possibility that a small nuke (possibly from Russia) will hit America by 2020, and a missile by 15 years after that. Actually, the US and the rest of the west are not in danger from the small missiles that are in North Korea; most can hit japan, china, south Korea or Russia, but 500 miles is the extent of many of their known missiles. One must take into consideration that modern wars proper do not take as long as the wars of yesteryear, as modern technology (aircraft, aircraft carriers and motor vehicles) allows armies to cross countries in mere days, not weeks. People could cite the extended conflicts in the middle east, but this is not war proper. In war proper, even in modern times, if an enemy occupies a country, the people of the country have to evacuate from the advance of enemy soldiers, or they are pushed to the side or taken hostage, and sometimes killed. In Afghanistan, we cannot do that because we do not face a global threat like that of nukes, and the reigning government (Karzai and the rest of his lackeys) has a serious problem with us.
That basically surmises my knowledge of a possible WW3. What other future issues are there?
-
That is not true do you know that the longest war the US has been involved in is the most recent. its the one in Afghanistan
-
Giving people power to harm other people, does not create peace.
It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.
Although you're fundamentally correct, you don't have to make it that complicated. There's a reason police officers carry weapons. At potentially violent protests, they send in those officers to keep peace.
Nothing is worth killing for.
Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?
Unfortunately, what psychedelic does not understand is that pacifism only works under a mutual agreement. If everyone promised not to kill, it would be much simpler. But nature doesn't work that way. If all trees in a forest agreed to grow only three meters tall, it would be much better for all trees; nature is, however, constant competition.
As for a possibility of a nuclear war, I dunno, but I should hope not. At the moment, the world is in pretty much a stalemate. Every country knows that if they fire a nuke, they face getting nuked themselves. However, all it takes is one wiseguy (get smart, anyone?)...
I wouldn't describe it as a stalemate right now. None of the countries which have nuclear weapons want to launch them. The world economy has progressed to a point where it is in the best interests of everyone to remain peaceful. Without capitalism . . . who knows? Iran is a threat (damn Islamic Revolution) but I think that we might even be able to shoot it down (see SDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative)).
###Question for the more experienced, I'm curious, is there any working method of taking out missile's in flight? (such as an ICBM)
Dunno, but there are a ton of proposed methods. If there were one, I doubt us peons would know about it. Top secret. Read the SDI Wikipedia page, though. It is very interesting. I read the CHECMATE section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Hypervelocity_Rail_Gun_.28CHECMATE.29) and it is very interesting. A hypervelocity rail gun capable of firing a projectile at 24 miles per second . . .
-
Iran and North Korea meet both criteria (though some claim Iran is not nuclear-armed).
Iran is the only one that claims that... Everyone else thinks they are making nukes, since even their government has (in the past) specified a desire to create nukes.
And while its true North Korea's missiles are currently very limited, given a few years, they could easily develope into long range ICBMs. And N. Korea still harbors strong feelings against S. Korea, and it wouldn't surprise me if they attacked (their leader is a total mentally insane idiot... Mutually assured destruction means nothing to him!).
@SDI: I do recall this from Civ 4, which prompted me to look it up a few years ago, but to my knowledge, such a project has never been completed and has had no recent news.
-
Contrary to what Transformers would have us believe, railguns are real. You can watch them on YouTube.
And while its true North Korea's missiles are currently very limited, given a few years, they could easily develope into long range ICBMs. And N. Korea still harbors strong feelings against S. Korea, and it wouldn't surprise me if they attacked (their leader is a total mentally insane idiot... Mutually assured destruction means nothing to him!).
No offense, but it took the US a good decade to do that, and this was with very good scientists. Rocketry is no simple matter.
Right now, the US arsenal is concentrated on high-precision attacks on strategic centers. This would work both in conventional warfare and in Afghan guerrilla warfare. So really rocketry is more important than a high payload; one compensates for the other (i.e. a high payload means you need less precision).
-
Indeed, but you must remember, things these days are produced faster than ever. As I said in a past post, it took thousands of years to go from the wheel to the automobile, but only decades to go from the auto to the space shuttle. In the same theory, countries could develope missiles faster thanks to more advanced technology, and stupid people in other countries no securing their secrets well enough. :P
I do agree though, that high precession rocketry is very important. In the past, it wasn't uncommon to miss a target completely, which could be disasterous, potentially killing allied soldiers (friendly fire ain't) or innocent civilians (which, while nobody cared about in the WW's, is the crucial point of the Afganistan missions).
-
Mistakes happen and what you are describing(missing the target completely) did not happen as much as you make it out to have happened.
-
Mistakes happen and what you are describing(missing the target completely) did not happen as much as you make it out to have happened.
True, but they still happened, and really, friendly fire (in general) is a very nasty thing. Nothing's worse than being shot in the back (accidently) by your own ally.
-
Quote from: -Archmage- on August 10, 2010, 09:38:48
Quote
Giving people power to harm other people, does not create peace.
It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.
Although you're fundamentally correct, you don't have to make it that complicated. There's a reason police officers carry weapons. At potentially violent protests, they send in those officers to keep peace.
Agreed.
Quote from: -Archmage- on August 10, 2010, 09:38:48
Quote
Nothing is worth killing for.
Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?
Unfortunately, what psychedelic does not understand is that pacifism only works under a mutual agreement. If everyone promised not to kill, it would be much simpler. But nature doesn't work that way. If all trees in a forest agreed to grow only three meters tall, it would be much better for all trees; nature is, however, constant competition.
Good point. :)
-
You can put war like this, odd comparison but still..
Linux is free and fast, if all use Linux more programs come to Linux, but it doesn`t help that Linux is free and fast when alot of the pop not use it.
Pacifism is good, if all be pacificst more peace will be, but it doesn`t help that pacifism is good when alot of the pop not use it.
-
That is not true do you know that the longest war the US has been involved in is the most recent. its the one in Afghanistan
You are really giving me a headache. May I resurrect the days of double facepalm (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9xzhrPA6veI/SkkkH6Iz0YI/AAAAAAAAB-s/7QvZ42l2jq0/s400/double-facepalm.jpg)?
Read my words this time:
One must take into consideration that modern wars proper do not take as long as the wars of yesteryear, as modern technology (aircraft, aircraft carriers and motor vehicles) allows armies to cross countries in mere days, not weeks. People could cite the extended conflicts in the middle east, but this is not war proper. In war proper, even in modern times, if an enemy occupies a country, the people of the country have to evacuate from the advance of enemy soldiers, or they are pushed to the side or taken hostage, and sometimes killed. In Afghanistan, we cannot do that because we do not face a global threat like that of nukes, and the reigning government (Karzai and the rest of his lackeys) has a serious problem with us.
Additionally, you should read up on your American history.
From Wikipedia.org:
The Vietnam War [A 2] was a Cold War military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1, 1955 [A 1], to April 30, 1975 when Saigon fell. This war followed the First Indochina War and was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the capitalist United States and other capitalist nations.[18]
-
That is not true do you know that the longest war the US has been involved in is the most recent. its the one in Afghanistan
You are really giving me a headache. May I resurrect the days of double facepalm (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9xzhrPA6veI/SkkkH6Iz0YI/AAAAAAAAB-s/7QvZ42l2jq0/s400/double-facepalm.jpg)?
Read my words this time:
One must take into consideration that modern wars proper do not take as long as the wars of yesteryear, as modern technology (aircraft, aircraft carriers and motor vehicles) allows armies to cross countries in mere days, not weeks. People could cite the extended conflicts in the middle east, but this is not war proper. In war proper, even in modern times, if an enemy occupies a country, the people of the country have to evacuate from the advance of enemy soldiers, or they are pushed to the side or taken hostage, and sometimes killed. In Afghanistan, we cannot do that because we do not face a global threat like that of nukes, and the reigning government (Karzai and the rest of his lackeys) has a serious problem with us.
Additionally, you should read up on your American history.
From Wikipedia.org:
The Vietnam War [A 2] was a Cold War military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1, 1955 [A 1], to April 30, 1975 when Saigon fell. This war followed the First Indochina War and was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the capitalist United States and other capitalist nations.[18]
Sorry for the first one I realized it too late and was too lazy to change it later, and what do you mean read up on your american history and I don't even think we've discussed vietnam in this topic
-
He ment
longest war the US has been involved in is the most recent. its the one in Afghanistan
Is wrong becauseThe Vietnam War [A 2] was a Cold War military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1, 1955 [A 1], to April 30, 1975 when Saigon fell. This war followed the First Indochina War and was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the capitalist United States and other capitalist nations.[18]
??
-
Clearly, the Vietnam War was the longest war.
-
Hate to break this to you but your wrong there the US has been in afghanistan since what 2001 and the US first sent advisors and any sort of armed troops to Vietnam in roughly 1964-5 it then fought till 1972(officially) after which the troops were withdrawn that makes up a 8 year period in which the US was involved. In the stuff prior to this the US involvement was little or none existent. what you wrote down is how long the conflict there raged but I'm talking about how long the US was involved.
-
I see what you are saying. However, you really need to read exactly what I said. Had you, you would have understood that the war in afghanistan is not necessarily a war proper.
-
It technically is, its a war between the US and afghani government versus Al-quaeda and taliban, I'd say its pretty much like the vietnam war in the way its fought.
-
I'm not very familiar with american history, and canada didn't participate in the vietnam war, but... didn't you guys...lose?
Also, I'm not sure if this is true, but I recall reading somewhere about how the Taliban was originally created by USA to stop the Russians from trying to communist-ize afghanistan.
-
Longest war? I think you guys might be forgeting the Korean War.....
I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise. I get that there is stupid people but even then, stupid people understand completely rational thought. Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.
-
Longest war? I think you guys might be forgeting the Korean War.....
The longest containing atleast one US troop.
I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise. I get that there is stupid people but even then, stupid people understand completely rational thought. Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.
=====>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can put war like this, odd comparison but still..
Linux is free and fast, if all use Linux more programs come to Linux, but it doesn`t help that Linux is free and fast when alot of the pop not use it.
Pacifism is good, if all be pacificst more peace will be, but it doesn`t help that pacifism is good when alot of the pop not use it.
-
stupid people understand completely rational thought
Oh they do? What do you think makes stupid people stupid then? :P.
I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise.
Because we have minds of our own and some people want more than rational compromise. ::)
Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.
Try applying that to the real world, it just doesn't work that way. :|
-
Longest war? I think you guys might be forgeting the Korean War.....
I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise. I get that there is stupid people but even then, stupid people understand completely rational thought. Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.
the korean war only lasted three years for he US though I think its still being fought officially at least
-
Hmm, Canada fought in the Korean war... I know a few local memorials to it...
South Korea wouldn't have survived if not for other countries. In fact, there was more foreign soldiers than south korea's own army!
-
Hmm, Canada fought in the Korean war... I know a few local memorials to it...
South Korea wouldn't have survived if not for other countries. In fact, there was more foreign soldiers than south korea's own army!
Yeah . . . that's why it's called a proxy war. The Cold War was not just a long standoff. It was a bunch of smaller military conflicts with capitalists fighting communists.
-
stupid people understand completely rational thought
Oh they do? What do you think makes stupid people stupid then? :P.
Not being able to conclude to ration thought themselves, does not mean completely ration thought cannot be understood.
I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise.
Because we have minds of our own and some people want more than rational compromise. ::)
I don't quite get what you're saying? You mean people are evil and greedy?
Well then those people shouldn't have power. Simple as that.
Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.
Try applying that to the real world, it just doesn't work that way. :|
I have, I've resolved tones of arguments before. Depends on the on the words.
-
Quote from: -Archmage- on August 17, 2010, 11:11:57
Quote
stupid people understand completely rational thought
Oh they do? What do you think makes stupid people stupid then? Tongue.
Not being able to conclude to ration thought themselves, does not mean completely ration thought cannot be understood.
So when trying to compromise with a stupid person, they will understand the offer, and make an irrational offer/demand in return. ::)
Quote
Quote
I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise.
Because we have minds of our own and some people want more than rational compromise. Roll Eyes
I don't quite get what you're saying? You mean people are evil and greedy?
Well then those people shouldn't have power. Simple as that.
Well you've got to have a LOT of power to stop them. It's not like they come up and say, "I take over", they gloss they way around, lying, buying people off, using bad reasons to avoid problems and to get rid of things/people they don't like. So a lot of times, you don't notice tyrants, and power-hungry people until they get what they want, and start doing bad things that show.
Quote
Quote
Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.
Try applying that to the real world, it just doesn't work that way. No Opinion
I have, I've resolved tones of arguments before. Depends on the on the words.
If "violence only leads to more violence" were true, than wars would be never-ending. They aren't.
If "words lead to love" were true then why is it that what people say to each other, can start a conflict(sometimes violent)? Words are powerful, they can create violence more easily than they can create peace. :|
-
psych, its not like peace isn good and stuff, but it won be achieveable.
-
Is Canada and the US at peace? If so, its achievable, if not, our tanks are ready (ok, that was a bad joke).
Really, who are we to predict the future? Things change too much over time. If you tried to mention the idea of a piece of metal on wheels moving without horses (a car) to some one two hundred years ago, they'd probably laugh at you.
-
Then again, it is achieveable at a minimal rate, i thought you got what i ment. But total peace isn very likely nor achieveable. I mean, todays conflicts might get solved, but tomorrow there is new ones...
-
The war in afghanistan is definitely not a conventional war. Americans are not allowed to enter houses of civilians without certain afghan policemen with them in afghanistan, smoke screens are not allowed where they can affect civilians, and other extensive methods of civilian protection are employed. Also, we would probably burn, cover with pesticides, or infest with parasites the poppy fields, which are a lucrative revenue generation system for the taliban.
Really, who are we to predict the future? Things change too much over time. If you tried to mention the idea of a piece of metal on wheels moving without horses (a car) to some one two hundred years ago, they'd probably laugh at you.
I seem to recall that the first locomotive was actually built in 1804, though prototypes were built as early as the 1780s... Though I could be wrong. Also, rails have been used in mines since the 16th century, and possibly in the Hallstat region of germania and also possibly in laconia (sparta). Of course, your point is quite valid, though one that is now trite.
-
Based on our technological advance for the past 10k years, i would say we maybe can reach as far as having spaceships out of our sun-system in 5-10k years...
-
I think we will get out of our solar system in before 5,000 or 10,000 years is up. Ummmm, is that really what you meant? I think you mean 50-100 years.
-
Obviously people will be crazy/evil people but I believe everyone always can be talked out of anything, except maybe their morals/ideals. But if you show them the truth of what is happening the everyone's conclusion should be that it is bad.
Like already mentioned no one perceives themselves as bad, you've already mentioned terrorism so I'll use that as an example.
I can see the terrorist point of view, I mean can you honestly say capitalism, consumerism and the loose values( compare to Muslims ) of america are the greatest way to live ever and you should make it your moral duty to change the rest of the world like it.
I don't think you could....
And American point of view is quite obvious, they see themselves as normal people(sometimes the greatest people ever) and other people (that they barely know about) hate them, and those people culture is so different from theirs they see it as being bad.
No one is right, everyone is wrong in someway yet it can seem just.This gray area is defiantly the most difficult to define what is right. What really is needed is just a want for peace from both sides, after that they can compromise and have actual change in both countries.
I know that isn't realistic in any way.... but possible.
And like I said..... depends on the words......
Being pessimistic about peace itself makes it so it doesn't happen, it just leads to tension between people.
And about technology, you have to remember that 90% of all scientist that ever lived, are still alive today. Technology moves at least 10 times faster than it did 500 years ago.
-
Like already mentioned no one perceives themselves as bad, you've already mentioned terrorism so I'll use that as an example.
I can see the terrorist point of view, I mean can you honestly say capitalism, consumerism and the loose values( compare to Muslims ) of america are the greatest way to live ever and you should make it your moral duty to change the rest of the world like it.
I don't think you could....
If no one perceives themselves as bad, we would have no consciences. People may not immediately acknowledge it, but it is possible and extremely likely that the old man from Libya who bombed a plane and killed hundreds feels bad about what he has done, even if he won't say it. (I think he did make some kind of public apology, but I probably am thinking about someone else) You say that you can see the terrorist point of view. Do you honestly think that blowing up girl's schools, opposing mosques, and buses, three extremely common targets, is something to sympathize with? I can debate all day about why people do that, but it is unquestionably wrong in almost every incident it occurred. Of course, in some cases, it is okay to do it, but rarely, just like torture is rarely justified. They blow up the infrastructure that would enable them to join the ranks of rich, 1st world countries, and then blow up more things because they hate being poor. I can definitely see their point of view, but it shows me that they hold other lives to be less sacred than I do.
-
A lot of people do things they know are wrong. They go to the doctor who tells them that they've got to stop stuffing their faces full of grease and high-fructose corn syrup or else it's going to kill them, but they keep on doing it anything.
-
A lot of people do things they know are wrong. They go to the doctor who tells them that they've got to stop stuffing their faces full of grease and high-fructose corn syrup or else it's going to kill them, but they keep on doing it anything.
Good point
-
A lot of people do things they know are wrong. They go to the doctor who tells them that they've got to stop stuffing their faces full of grease and high-fructose corn syrup or else it's going to kill them, but they keep on doing it anything.
You mean anyway?
-
A lot of people do things they know are wrong. They go to the doctor who tells them that they've got to stop stuffing their faces full of grease and high-fructose corn syrup or else it's going to kill them, but they keep on doing it anything.
You mean anyway?
Yes, yes I do.
-
Quote from: ElimiNator on Today at 13:08:15
Quote from: John.d.h on August 24, 2010, 22:08:45
A lot of people do things they know are wrong. They go to the doctor who tells them that they've got to stop stuffing their faces full of grease and high-fructose corn syrup or else it's going to kill them, but they keep on doing it anything.
You mean anyway?
Yes, yes I do.
I just fixed that a second ago and then read this. :cheesy:
Speaking of Human health, I don't think main stream medical stuff is much good at all. Everyone else goes and get's their flu shots, while I simply live a healthy lifestyle, they get the flu anyway, but I don't.......hmmmmm......... I could say a lot more, but I want to hear what everyone else has to say on the matter. Maybe we should create a new topic, so as to not take over this one?
A final note on the morality/basis for war: History speaks for itself.
-
Speaking of Human health, I don't think main stream medical stuff is much good at all. Everyone else goes and get's their flu shots, while I simply live a healthy lifestyle, they get the flu anyway, but I don't.......hmmmmm......... I could say a lot more, but I want to hear what everyone else has to say on the matter. Maybe we should create a new topic, so as to not take over this one?
Denying the hard-earned advances of medical science (Germ theory, probiotics, antibiotics, immunization) only gets you to the age in which the average life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy) was 30. Does this have something to do with your conspiracy theories? ::) I previously thought you were homeschooled because you didn't like school, but without a flu shot you get kicked out, where I live.
-
Traditional medicine has a lot going for it, and so does modern medical science. The former seems to be better when it comes to preventing sickness since it usually includes a holistic approach to a healthy lifestyle, and the majority of illnesses people get nowadays are self-inflicted or self-aggravated, like heart disease or cancer. Of course it's possible to live a healthy lifestyle with good nutrition and exercise and still get cancer or heart disease, and some problems are genetic (like cystic fibrosis) or caused by contagion (like influenza), but a healthy lifestyle goes a long way toward treating the symptoms of a lot of these and fortifying the body for when it does get attacked. Modern medical science in this country focuses very little on prevention. Big pharma would probably prefer that you drink a 6-pack of Monster every day so you'd come to them for insulin, Viagra, and Allī. Why would they tell you about cancer-fighting mushrooms (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/LearningAboutNewCancerPreventionMethods/learning-about-new-cancer-prevention-methods-toc)? That could lose them an awful lot of money if people got their cancer under control without the help of their invasive, toxic, and/or radioactive treatments.
-
I read somewhere that vaccines can cause brain damage, at any rate I haven't gotten shots in the past 8 years
-
I read somewhere that vaccines can cause brain damage, at any rate I haven't gotten shots in the past 8 years
Me nether, and I rarely get sick.
-
Denying the hard-earned advances of medical science (Germ theory, probiotics, antibiotics, immunization) only gets you to the age in which the average life expectancy was 30.
You have fun believing that. :P
Traditional medicine has a lot going for it, and so does modern medical science. The former seems to be better when it comes to preventing sickness since it usually includes a holistic approach to a healthy lifestyle, and the majority of illnesses people get nowadays are self-inflicted or self-aggravated, like heart disease or cancer. Of course it's possible to live a healthy lifestyle with good nutrition and exercise and still get cancer or heart disease, and some problems are genetic (like cystic fibrosis) or caused by contagion (like influenza), but a healthy lifestyle goes a long way toward treating the symptoms of a lot of these and fortifying the body for when it does get attacked. Modern medical science in this country focuses very little on prevention. Big pharma would probably prefer that you drink a 6-pack of Monster every day so you'd come to them for insulin, Viagra, and Allī. Why would they tell you about cancer-fighting mushrooms (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/LearningAboutNewCancerPreventionMethods/learning-about-new-cancer-prevention-methods-toc)? That could lose them an awful lot of money if people got their cancer under control without the help of their invasive, toxic, and/or radioactive treatments.
:thumbup:
You're health matters to you, your pocketbook matters to your doctor.
I read somewhere that vaccines can cause brain damage, at any rate I haven't gotten shots in the past 8 years
Me nether, and I rarely get sick.
:thumbup:
-
Denying the hard-earned advances of medical science (Germ theory, probiotics, antibiotics, immunization) only gets you to the age in which the average life expectancy was 30.
You have fun believing that. :P
Not only will I have fun, I am guaranteed to reach at least 50 years old, 95% chance. What can your dark age conspiracies say to that?
Traditional medicine has a lot going for it, and so does modern medical science. The former seems to be better when it comes to preventing sickness since it usually includes a holistic approach to a healthy lifestyle, and the majority of illnesses people get nowadays are self-inflicted or self-aggravated, like heart disease or cancer. Of course it's possible to live a healthy lifestyle with good nutrition and exercise and still get cancer or heart disease, and some problems are genetic (like cystic fibrosis) or caused by contagion (like influenza), but a healthy lifestyle goes a long way toward treating the symptoms of a lot of these and fortifying the body for when it does get attacked. Modern medical science in this country focuses very little on prevention. Big pharma would probably prefer that you drink a 6-pack of Monster every day so you'd come to them for insulin, Viagra, and Allī. Why would they tell you about cancer-fighting mushrooms (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/LearningAboutNewCancerPreventionMethods/learning-about-new-cancer-prevention-methods-toc)? That could lose them an awful lot of money if people got their cancer under control without the help of their invasive, toxic, and/or radioactive treatments.
Yes, the corporations are definitely in it for the money. There is a lot of money to be had. Chemo for a month can cost over 30,000 dollars!
-
Denying the hard-earned advances of medical science (Germ theory, probiotics, antibiotics, immunization) only gets you to the age in which the average life expectancy was 30.
You have fun believing that. :P
http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markville.ss.yrdsb.edu.on.ca%2Fhistory%2F16th%2FHow%2520Dark%2520were%2520the.doc&rct=j&q=Life%20expetancy%20dark%20age&ei=C7p2TPv_Lo3qONqotfoG&usg=AFQjCNG4Q-ou9x6cANxMvIMoz1lLOcEFVg&cad=rjahttp://www.google.no/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.answers.com%2FQ%2FWhat_was_the_life_expectancy_during_the_dark_ages&rct=j&q=Life%20expetancy%20dark%20age&ei=C7p2TPv_Lo3qONqotfoG&usg=AFQjCNGXsKO4X1qO0SHhZ_H5J52NNTEx2g&cad=rja (http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.answers.com%2FQ%2FWhat_was_the_life_expectancy_during_the_dark_ages&rct=j&q=Life%20expetancy%20dark%20age&ei=C7p2TPv_Lo3qONqotfoG&usg=AFQjCNGXsKO4X1qO0SHhZ_H5J52NNTEx2g&cad=rja)http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/05/widespread-vacc-1.php http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
Here is some links, me trying to look up both cases. Im glad we have medicine and vaccines though, they do save us from something.
smallpox?
-
What can your dark age conspiracies say to that?
One question: What dark age conspiracies??
Me: I drink this (http://emergen-c.com)(takes awhile to load) at least once a day and I workout a lot, I also eat mostly organic foods. I do not get shots. Conclusion: I'm healthy and fit.
Average American: Eat's mainly non-organic food, diet includes MSG(Monosodium Glutamate), HFCS(High Fructose Corn Syrup), Hydrogenated Oils, Artificial Colors and other bad things. Doesn't get that much exercise. Get's shots. Conclusion: Scary possibility of cancer or heart disease. Poorly fit, possibly fat.
I watch and watch as medical people blabber out bullshit and continuously ask for thousands of dollars just so someone can sit around and rot on some drugs, while I watch my Dad doing research and ordering vitamins, he's 63, and can run, bike, and play basketball. His only problem is parkinsons, which was caused by mainstream medical science.
Mainstream medical science simply DOESN'T WORK.
I am guaranteed to reach at least 50 years old, 95% chance.
Only 50? No offense but that's horrible. :|
Im glad we have medicine and vaccines though, they do save us from something.
smallpox?
I don't know very much about vaccines and stuff, and I would get my Dad to talk to you about that stuff, but he doesn't want to get involved in more stuff(he's busy). :|
-
Okay. When I say the life expectancy in the dark ages was approximately 30, one needs to understand that most people died before the age of 15. Little kids were susceptible to various forms of disease and were generally more malnourished than the bigger ones. Of course, by age 15, if you were high enough in standing, you were considered to be an independent adult. Many mothers and their babies died in childbirth. If you were lucky enough to live past 20, you could expect to live to 40-45.
Denying the hard-earned advances of medical science (Germ theory, probiotics, antibiotics, immunization) only gets you to the age in which the average life expectancy was 30.
You have fun believing that. :P
http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markville.ss.yrdsb.edu.on.ca%2Fhistory%2F16th%2FHow%2520Dark%2520were%2520the.doc&rct=j&q=Life%20expetancy%20dark%20age&ei=C7p2TPv_Lo3qONqotfoG&usg=AFQjCNG4Q-ou9x6cANxMvIMoz1lLOcEFVg&cad=rjahttp://www.google.no/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.answers.com%2FQ%2FWhat_was_the_life_expectancy_during_the_dark_ages&rct=j&q=Life%20expetancy%20dark%20age&ei=C7p2TPv_Lo3qONqotfoG&usg=AFQjCNGXsKO4X1qO0SHhZ_H5J52NNTEx2g&cad=rja (http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.answers.com%2FQ%2FWhat_was_the_life_expectancy_during_the_dark_ages&rct=j&q=Life%20expetancy%20dark%20age&ei=C7p2TPv_Lo3qONqotfoG&usg=AFQjCNGXsKO4X1qO0SHhZ_H5J52NNTEx2g&cad=rja)http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/05/widespread-vacc-1.php http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
Here is some links, me trying to look up both cases. Im glad we have medicine and vaccines though, they do save us from something.
smallpox?
What do you mean, both cases? Anyways, I read the one about the dark ages. I knew a lot of it already, as I am kind of a classical and medieval history buff... it was very accurate and detailed, explaining the underlying causes for much of what occurred. I think they got some stuff wrong about the various germanic tribes, because they assume everyone live an equine-centered life. However, it clearly described the inner politics of such a society (clan conflict, vassalage in a basic form, alpha male dominance). As for the next two, I have to agree with them.
For the next one, you have got to be kidding me. These people still think autism is caused by vaccines. Is this really a scientific publication? I have to agree with them about how clean water and hygiene have played roles, but they also need to acknowledge that typhoid was vaccinated against, typhoid being one of the statistical areas they claim to have studied. Have fun trying to find a peer-reviewed, scientific medical study that supports that site.
What can your dark age conspiracies say to that?
One question: What dark age conspiracies??
Me: I drink this (http://emergen-c.com)(takes awhile to load) at least once a day and I workout a lot, I also eat mostly organic foods. I do not get shots. Conclusion: I'm healthy and fit.
Average American: Eat's mainly non-organic food, diet includes MSG(Monosodium Glutamate), HFCS(High Fructose Corn Syrup), Hydrogenated Oils, Artificial Colors and other bad things. Doesn't get that much exercise. Get's shots. Conclusion: Scary possibility of cancer or heart disease. Poorly fit, possibly fat.
I watch and watch as medical people blabber out bullshit and continuously ask for thousands of dollars just so someone can sit around and rot on some drugs, while I watch my Dad doing research and ordering vitamins, he's 63, and can run, bike, and play basketball. His only problem is parkinsons, which was caused by mainstream medical science.
Mainstream medical science simply DOESN'T WORK.
I am guaranteed to reach at least 50 years old, 95% chance.
Only 50? No offense but that's horrible. :|
You are perpetuating a strawman. I am not saying that being fit is unnecessary for good health. People are fit in afghanistan and they still get polio, because they have no vaccines. Why don't we have polio in America? Vaccines. In afghanistan, the taliban, perpetuating dark age myths, has prevented the spread of the vaccine. As for reaching 50, you are only guaranteed to reach 50 as well, 95%. We'll both probably reach 70, but because of medicine. I'll probably reach 70, but because of medicine.
I don't know very much about vaccines and stuff, and I would get my Dad to talk to you about that stuff, but he doesn't want to get involved in more stuff(he's busy). :|
How convenient. ::)
-
Not to break it or anything, but I wanted to know, what has made humanity progress the last 2k-10k years? science? religion? evolution? wtever you have in your mind :P
-
The main reason that Archmage, Eliminator and Wyvern don't get sick is very simple: they don't come into contact with people who have polio or measles or any other ruthless disease. How odious! They drink from the goblet of modern science and then spread nonsense about the poison in the cup. Do your own research. There is not one peer-reviewed study which will back up your claims, so basically what you have is old wives' tales.
Average American: Eat's mainly non-organic food, diet includes MSG(Monosodium Glutamate), HFCS(High Fructose Corn Syrup), Hydrogenated Oils, Artificial Colors and other bad things. Doesn't get that much exercise. Get's shots. Conclusion: Scary possibility of cancer or heart disease. Poorly fit, possibly fat.
That's irrelevant. No doctor ever suggested that people do those things, except the shots.
His only problem is parkinsons, which was caused by mainstream medical science.
[citation needed]
I am guaranteed to reach at least 50 years old, 95% chance.
Only 50? No offense but that's horrible. :|
Missed the mark again, Arch. It doesn't matter what your opinions on someone's life expectancy is. What matters is that "mainstream medical science" (using the same processes that brought us computers, btw) has extended lifetimes and improved quality of life. And by the way, there is no "mainstream medical science". There is science, and there is that which is not science. If it can make testable, reliably accurate predictions which encompass all available data, we call that science.
Im glad we have medicine and vaccines though, they do save us from something.
I don't know very much about vaccines and stuff, and I would get my Dad to talk to you about that stuff, but he doesn't want to get involved in more stuff(he's busy).
I don't care what your dad thinks. You believe it, so it's time for you to think for yourself. If you have no more reason to believe it than that your father believes it, you need to reconsider your position. If you think fathers are a good measure of truth, well then Copernicus might as well have kept his mouth shut.
Not to break it or anything, but I wanted to know, what has made humanity progress the last 2k-10k years? science? religion? evolution? wtever you have in your mind :P
Right. The medicine discussion needs to go elsewhere.
-
His only problem is parkinsons, which was caused by mainstream medical science.
[citation needed]
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
:O
-
You are perpetuating a strawman. I am not saying that being fit is unnecessary for good health.
I think you're doing the same by referring to traditional medicine as "dark age beliefs", or even comparing the two. In the dark ages they believed that if you were sick, it might be because you just have too much blood, and mercury was thought to be a cure-all. Obviously there's a lot of alternative medicine out there that is completely bogus, and a large part of the problem is that doesn't fit into the "go to the doctor and get a shot" paradigm gets lumped together with the garbage like homeopathy.
Regarding vaccines, how many of them have been tested for long-term side effects? How rigorously can you control the quality of a vaccine when there's a shortage and you just need to produce as much as you can as fast as you can before flu season (like last year)? There might not be any respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports the "flu vaccine causes autism" idea, but how many of them have said "yes we've tested and reviewed the long-term potential side effects of this drug and deemed it to be safe"? Sure, smallpox and polio were two things that were in dire need of a vaccine, and it's a great thing that we put those two diseases behind us, but if you're a fairly healthy individual with a decent immune system, why go out of your way to get a vaccine for something that's pretty harmless when you have no idea what the long-term effects might be?
I'm not saying that vaccination is always a bad idea, but in general it's not good to put things into your body when you don't know what they'll do, and when you don't need them in the first place. When someone is skeptical about the safety of a drug, that can be a very good thing. The job of the FDA is to be skeptical about the safety and effectiveness of new drugs, and it can take years for something to get approved, and still there are recalls when we find out that something slipped through the cracks and caused a lot of people to develop adverse conditions or get killed by the drug that the FDA approved.
Traditional medical science has its snake oil salesmen, and so does big pharma. To call one a "dark age conspiracy" while holding the other up on a pedestal as the savior of mankind is ill-informed and bigoted.
-
Hmm, I don't see what this has to do with the future of humanity, unless you are trying to (somehow?) discuss future medicine. Perhaps this part of the discussion should be split into a new topic?
The way I see it, vaccine deniers need to get real. Just because you don't see the effects doesn't mean you shouldn't take them. I mean, I might end up with a flu only once every five years. Perhaps to most people, the flu is nothing, since its only really deadly to the very old or very young, HOWEVER, what you fail to take into aspect is that if you end up passing it on to someone else, who possibly is at higher risk, you are responsible for what happens to them because you didn't get a simple (possibly even free) shot. And I can't say the same for all of you, but even if the chances are low(ish), I still don't want to end up sick.
It's time you think for more than just yourself and think a bit about others.
Also, there's the problems of some diseases which, while rare, don't care if you are active, or load up on vitamin rich drinks, or even if you are in a risk group.
You're health matters to you, your pocketbook matters to your doctor.
Now, I can't speak for all of you. I know the american health industry can be... bad, at the best, but if your doctor cares only about getting money, it's time to switch to a new doctor. Here in Sask, Canada, I don't think I've ever payed a doctor, barring that one time for a planter's wart removal (apparently its not covered), since its all covered by Provincial health care.
Finally, vaccines never were guaranteed to be 100% successful, and probably never will. However, they usually give high 90-s in the success rate, which can easily mean the difference between life and death. And of course, one also must remember that there are often many strains of diseases, such as with the Flu, when we saw how the H1N1 vaccine was rushed in, since it wasn't covered by the standard flu shot.
As for brain damage, you are FAR more likely to be killed by the flu than to get brain damage from a vaccine.
It's time you start thinking with your heads. Vaccine conspiracies are getting as bad as those who deny we landed on the moon...
-
The main reason that Archmage, Eliminator and Wyvern don't get sick is very simple: they don't come into contact with people who have polio or measles or any other ruthless disease. How odious! They drink from the goblet of modern science and then spread nonsense about the poison in the cup. Do your own research. There is not one peer-reviewed study which will back up your claims, so basically what you have is old wives' tales.
Average American: Eat's mainly non-organic food, diet includes MSG(Monosodium Glutamate), HFCS(High Fructose Corn Syrup), Hydrogenated Oils, Artificial Colors and other bad things. Doesn't get that much exercise. Get's shots. Conclusion: Scary possibility of cancer or heart disease. Poorly fit, possibly fat.
That's irrelevant. No doctor ever suggested that people do those things, except the shots.
His only problem is parkinsons, which was caused by mainstream medical science.
[citation needed]
I am guaranteed to reach at least 50 years old, 95% chance.
Only 50? No offense but that's horrible. :|
Missed the mark again, Arch. It doesn't matter what your opinions on someone's life expectancy is. What matters is that "mainstream medical science" (using the same processes that brought us computers, btw) has extended lifetimes and improved quality of life. And by the way, there is no "mainstream medical science". There is science, and there is that which is not science. If it can make testable, reliably accurate predictions which encompass all available data, we call that science.
Im glad we have medicine and vaccines though, they do save us from something.
I don't know very much about vaccines and stuff, and I would get my Dad to talk to you about that stuff, but he doesn't want to get involved in more stuff(he's busy).
I don't care what your dad thinks. You believe it, so it's time for you to think for yourself. If you have no more reason to believe it than that your father believes it, you need to reconsider your position. If you think fathers are a good measure of truth, well then Copernicus might as well have kept his mouth shut.
Not to break it or anything, but I wanted to know, what has made humanity progress the last 2k-10k years? science? religion? evolution? wtever you have in your mind :P
Right. The medicine discussion needs to go elsewhere.
Vaccines contained and still occasionally contain(though its denied) lead, lead kills your brain and body.
By the way, has anyone heard of the Kombucha mushroom, its a mushroom that you grow in tea, and its supposed to be really healthy, it actually tastes good when you make it at home, I also heard it can cure cancer
-
You are perpetuating a strawman. I am not saying that being fit is unnecessary for good health.
I think you're doing the same by referring to traditional medicine as "dark age beliefs", or even comparing the two. In the dark ages they believed that if you were sick, it might be because you just have too much blood, and mercury was thought to be a cure-all. Obviously there's a lot of alternative medicine out there that is completely bogus, and a large part of the problem is that doesn't fit into the "go to the doctor and get a shot" paradigm gets lumped together with the garbage like homeopathy.
Though this discussion is not for this topic, I have been accused of a logical fallacy and I must defend my honor! :O I don't believe I ever said traditional medicine is something to despise. I was attacking his rejection of modern medicine. The orient and the brazilian rain forest hold treasures barely imaginable, but the way to unlock health is not to deny those treasures, or those of modern science, but to combine the two, and make sure that you use science as your fact-check. You make it seem like science is at odds with traditional medicine (that, or you think I think science is at odds with traditional medicine). Science has confirmed many of the claims of traditional medicine, and rejected others because of logic, and along the way discovered the placebo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect#Mechanism_of_the_effect), and it's detrimental twin, the nocebo effect (from latin nocere, to harm). However, you do have to recognize that immunization has saved countless more lives than traditional medicine. Traditional medicine never eliminated smallpox or polio.
Regarding vaccines, how many of them have been tested for long-term side effects? How rigorously can you control the quality of a vaccine when there's a shortage and you just need to produce as much as you can as fast as you can before flu season (like last year)? There might not be any respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports the "flu vaccine causes autism" idea, but how many of them have said "yes we've tested and reviewed the long-term potential side effects of this drug and deemed it to be safe"? Sure, smallpox and polio were two things that were in dire need of a vaccine, and it's a great thing that we put those two diseases behind us, but if you're a fairly healthy individual with a decent immune system, why go out of your way to get a vaccine for something that's pretty harmless when you have no idea what the long-term effects might be?
I'm not saying that vaccination is always a bad idea, but in general it's not good to put things into your body when you don't know what they'll do, and when you don't need them in the first place. When someone is skeptical about the safety of a drug, that can be a very good thing. The job of the FDA is to be skeptical about the safety and effectiveness of new drugs, and it can take years for something to get approved, and still there are recalls when we find out that something slipped through the cracks and caused a lot of people to develop adverse conditions or get killed by the drug that the FDA approved.
You say immunization is unnecessary today. Ya know why? It is called herd immunity (http://pediatrics.about.com/od/pediatricsglossary/g/herd_immunity.htm). It works like this. Your parents, colleagues and associates have all been vaccinated. You haven't. You won't get the disease because no one can spread it to you. If people aren't vaccinated, no herd immunity, and no protection against the disease until the next Edward Jenner steps up to the plate and figures out what to do. As long as there exists organisms upon which the contagion can spread, human safety relies upon massive vaccinations to continue the herd immunity. It doesn't get much more complicated. It is not hard to understand.
Traditional medical science has its snake oil salesmen, and so does big pharma. To call one a "dark age conspiracy" while holding the other up on a pedestal as the savior of mankind is ill-informed and bigoted.
I never called arch's ideas 'dark age conspiracies'. Arch holds views that, regardless of whether or not his view are correct, are called conspiracy theories. America could be run by the bilderbergs and the illuminati and he would still be a conspiracy theorist as he has a theory(in the loose sense) about a conspiracy. I said he was a dark age conspiracy theorist for his views against medical science, as in the dark ages, people thought the key to health was simply being fit, nothing more, nothing less. Tell that to Teddy Roosevelt, one of our best and fittest presidents, and he would probably have a problem with your thinking. Again, I did a poor job of articulating my views, or you didn't understand fully, but somehow the wrong message came across. Of course modern medicine has its hucksters and charlatans as well. No one denies that. However, the scientific method got rid of small pox, and enabled the western world to reach age 20 with ease. Clearly modern medicine is the savior of something, and because they didn't have it, in the 1900s up to 500 million people died of smallpox (source: InfoPlease (http://www.infoplease.com/cig/dangerous-diseases-epidemics/smallpox-12000-years-terror.html#axzz0xlW5wh20)). All horrible deaths, all preventable by a program of worldwide vaccination. That is, if scientific illiteracy, poverty, and the threat of cultural backlash over forced immunizations wasn't likely to stop it.
-
It's about the human condition, so it's kinda on-topic.
Though this discussion is not for this topic, I have been accused of a logical fallacy and I must defend my honor! :O I don't believe I ever said traditional medicine is something to despise. I was attacking his rejection of modern medicine. The orient and the brazilian rain forest hold treasures barely imaginable, but the way to unlock health is not to deny those treasures, or those of modern science, but to combine the two, and make sure that you use science as your fact-check.
Okay, that's better. In that case, I won't argue against that at all. Neither one is all-good and neither one is all-bad, and they are not at all mutually exclusive.
You make it seem like science is at odds with traditional medicine
Totally not what I was going for.
(that, or you think I think science is at odds with traditional medicine).
It did seem that way at the time.
You say immunization is unnecessary today. Ya know why? It is called herd immunity (http://pediatrics.about.com/od/pediatricsglossary/g/herd_immunity.htm). It works like this. Your parents, colleagues and associates have all been vaccinated. You haven't. You won't get the disease because no one can spread it to you. If people aren't vaccinated, no herd immunity, and no protection against the disease until the next Edward Jenner steps up to the plate and figures out what to do. As long as there exists organisms upon which the contagion can spread, human safety relies upon massive vaccinations to continue the herd immunity. It doesn't get much more complicated. It is not hard to understand.
I didn't say/mean that immunization is unnecessary in general. I said/meant that specifically, I don't need a flu shot at this point in my life, and people who don't need immunization probably shouldn't get it, so I won't be getting one unless/until circumstances change. I'm not likely to get the flu, and if I do get the flu the odds of it causing any permanent damage are next to nil. People who don't need it probably should not take any drug that hasn't been extensively tested and proven safe. Mercury and heroin were both thought to be wonder-drugs, and we now know that they're horribly toxic and harmful. Why assume that the things they pass off as beneficial these days are that much better? Two hundred years from now, our descendants may look back at our 21st-century medicine in disgust in the same way we view those two substances. Any drug is, by default, unsafe until proven otherwise, and it pays to have a modicum of skepticism about adding unknown substances to the body.
If they come up with a reliable HIV vaccine that may or may not cause brain damage, then maybe they should still ship it off in mass quantities to Africa because AIDS is a much bigger concern in many areas of that continent than anything else. In that case, the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk. However, in the United States, such a vaccine would best be avoided except by those engaging in high-risk behaviors like promiscuous (especially unprotected) sex and/or intravenous drug use, and those working in medical professions, until/unless it was proven to be safe, because HIV/AIDS isn't a major concern for most of the population. In this case, the potential benefit is very low while the potential risk is completely unknown. Similarly, smallpox vaccines were a good idea back when it was a threat, but now they should be avoided because it's known that the vaccine does cause brain damage in some cases.
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4176/chartx.jpg)
Does that make more sense?
I never called arch's ideas 'dark age conspiracies'. Arch holds views that, regardless of whether or not his view are correct, are called conspiracy theories. America could be run by the bilderbergs and the illuminati and he would still be a conspiracy theorist as he has a theory(in the loose sense) about a conspiracy. I said he was a dark age conspiracy theorist for his views against medical science, as in the dark ages, people thought the key to health was simply being fit, nothing more, nothing less. Tell that to Teddy Roosevelt, one of our best and fittest presidents, and he would probably have a problem with your thinking. Again, I did a poor job of articulating my views, or you didn't understand fully, but somehow the wrong message came across. Of course modern medicine has its hucksters and charlatans as well. No one denies that. However, the scientific method got rid of small pox, and enabled the western world to reach age 20 with ease. Clearly modern medicine is the savior of something, and because they didn't have it, in the 1900s up to 500 million people died of smallpox (source: InfoPlease (http://www.infoplease.com/cig/dangerous-diseases-epidemics/smallpox-12000-years-terror.html#axzz0xlW5wh20)). All horrible deaths, all preventable by a program of worldwide vaccination. That is, if scientific illiteracy, poverty, and the threat of cultural backlash over forced immunizations wasn't likely to stop it.
Okay, gotcha. I guess it came across to me as a broader accusation than you meant it to be. I kinda took it as a "you're all ignorant savages!" kinda thing. Good thing you clarified. :thumbup:
-
Maybe I should do a little clarification myself...
When I say "mainstream medical science", I mean the official medical science(of the "Big Pharma"). I do think some of it is true so I use the word science. Why? Because there are other doctors that aren't part of the "Big Pharma".
When did I ever say health was about being fit muscularly?
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/dr-russell-blaylock-vaccine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-swine-flu/ (http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/dr-russell-blaylock-vaccine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-swine-flu/)
This isn't the doctor my Dad reads, but this guy is saying about the same thing.
-
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/dr-russell-blaylock-vaccine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-swine-flu/
This isn't the doctor my Dad reads, but this guy is saying about the same thing.
Everyone knew the swine flu was overhyped. The danger was that it did spread so quickly.
-
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/dr-russell-blaylock-vaccine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-swine-flu/
This isn't the doctor my Dad reads, but this guy is saying about the same thing.
Everyone knew the swine flu was overhyped. The danger was that it did spread so quickly.
I think only teachers and public officials were the ones saying it was harmful. Most people understood that it was similar to other flus. I never got the vaccine. The article you have, Arch, has some valid points, but it makes others that would require citation or at least some further explanation. It was written by a doctor, apparently, but scientific documents usually require citation. It has extra reading, but very little of it is credible, and none acts as the citation the subject needs.
Alright, that seems to be about enough of medicine talk, seeing the topic right next to this. So, everybody, please switch topic, but if you can't, only one more post.
Okay. I would like to know do people think india or china will be the dominant nation? India has a higher birthrate and democratic government, but still struggles with polio, cholera, and dysentery. Its administration has strong foundations but little support in its roots. China is in the lead now, full of modernized economic potential, but has a government that many claim is failing. It also suffers with extreme poverty, which forces people to live in caves as troglodytes, of which china has the most, and also has people robbing graves.
-
China, Russia or India, hard to choose...I would say a combination of them. And i think US will fail the test of time some time soon, though i hope not, that seems the most likely outcome. I`ve seen people hacking into the pentagon too... Its like a sport for hackers lol.. wonder if I can hack the Norwegian military ::) mhm how is the relation with US/Russia? it was strict, is it just as before?..
-
China, Russia or India, hard to choose...I would say a combination of them. And i think US will fail the test of time some time soon, though i hope not, that seems the most likely outcome. I`ve seen people hacking into the pentagon too... Its like a sport for hackers lol.. wonder if I can hack the Norwegian military ::) mhm how is the relation with US/Russia? it was strict, is it just as before?..
Russia or China but none of the nations mentioned has a chance in my opinion, India is suffering from being unorganised, separated by various religions, starvation, disease, and lack of money. China is becoming increasingly polluted and their birthrate is going down, they also rely on other countries to buy their products if those countries collapse, China collapses. Russia is dying out and is to a large degree corrupt, though i will not complain about Putin, it also is collapsing economically, I will not go into discussing the US but the prospects are pretty grim too, unless there will be a quick policy change.
-
Russia is not a major player, nor has it been since the 80s. Putin really cannot do much to make his country worse or better. Why on earth would you think russia is a candidate? That makes absolutely no sense. If a 3rd were to exist, it would be Germany, the USA, or South Korea, and possibly it's ally japan. China is not going to stop increasing in population very soon, but it does have many problems. As for India, one can only comprehend the future if he understands the past. India has a long history of refusing to be westernized, and it has forsaken railroads, effective government, and modern infrastructural changes until very recently, and has a long ways to go.
China, Russia or India, hard to choose...I would say a combination of them. And i think US will fail the test of time some time soon, though i hope not, that seems the most likely outcome. I`ve seen people hacking into the pentagon too... Its like a sport for hackers lol.. wonder if I can hack the Norwegian military ::) mhm how is the relation with US/Russia? it was strict, is it just as before?..
Hacking the pentagon is not a sport, unless you can't understand consequences. If you possess the skill to do so and use that skill, and they find you, you get locked up for life. If you are joking about hacking the norwegian military, it would be strange, because conspiring to do so generally gets you locked up, at least in america. Are you from Norway?
-
iT WAS A JOKE! I cant even hack my own OS :P :O
-
Are you from Norway? A couple years ago, most of the modders were from america, but I would say a lot more are from other countries. I think all the original glest makers were from spain, though.
-
yes im norway, check my profile :)
-
nowhere, NASA is closing all space flights for the time being, and our technology has not advanced significantly in the past 10-30 years :P :P, the only thing I can imagine happening is another world war :-X
No Alienware didnt exist thirty years ago nor did the ps3.Computers are evolving faster than we can notice. There are already holograms (3d tv that dont need glasses) What the heck do you want now. Well I want faster postal service so my alienware can get here before i travel
-
yeah I got one of these tvs from germany, though it is red white blue FE!
-
Personally, I'm not so hot about some advances in technology. I'm not sure I want to control games with my mind or something, and holograms are, to be frank, somewhat creepy... :O
In all honesty, technology advances fast, but it does make you wonder how much of that you could need...
If there's one futuristic technology I would like, it's teleportation! Of course, even that would come with flaws, since it could put automobiles and nearly every other form of transportation out of business, as well as make moving as far away from the inlaws as possibly nearly futile... :O
-
Personally, I'm not so hot about some advances in technology. I'm not sure I want to control games with my mind or something, and holograms are, to be frank, somewhat creepy... :O
In all honesty, technology advances fast, but it does make you wonder how much of that you could need...
If there's one futuristic technology I would like, it's teleportation! Of course, even that would come with flaws, since it could put automobiles and nearly every other form of transportation out of business, as well as make moving as far away from the inlaws as possibly nearly futile... :O
LOL WUT? Its not about what you need, its about what you want :O
-
Yeah, computing power grows exponentially. The more powerful it gets, the faster it grows. I probably have more power in my cellular phone than any computer that existed in the 1980s, and it's not even a fancy phone. It cost me like $40 brand new. :P Faster computing leads to faster research, which leads to faster scientific breakthroughs, which leads to better technology, which leads to faster computing, which leads to... you get the idea. The only problem is if we reach a point when we hit a barrier, where processing can't be miniaturized any further, when we simply can't fit anything more on a hard drive of a certain size because we're already using things on a molecular level, and telecommunications networks can't handle any more data without making lines the size of subway tunnels, at which point the worldwide economy collapses and we're all screwed.
nowhere, NASA is closing all space flights for the time being, and our technology has not advanced significantly in the past 10-30 years :P :P, the only thing I can imagine happening is another world war :-X
I think you're too young to remember what the world was like before the internet. Suffice it to say, the world is a very different place than it was even when I was a kid (and I'm not that old!).
LOL WUT? Its not about what you need, its about what you want :O
I've gotta agree with you there. Necessity isn't the mother of invention, as some would have you believe. Its parents are laziness, greed, and a desire to kill each other. We wouldn't have cars if people weren't too lazy to walk/bike everywhere, we wouldn't have any number of other crap if not for somebody's desire to sell it for lots of money, and we'd be missing pretty much every good thing ever invented if wars never existed.
-
I've gotta agree with you there. Necessity isn't the mother of invention, as some would have you believe. Its parents are laziness, greed, and a desire to kill each other. We wouldn't have cars if people weren't too lazy to walk/bike everywhere, we wouldn't have any number of other crap if not for somebody's desire to sell it for lots of money, and we'd be missing pretty much every good thing ever invented if wars never existed.
Necessity was certainly the mother of invention when Philip II reformed his army, when Marius created the legions as we know it, and welsh developed their large bows (long bows were the end result). You could say that the desire to kill somebody was the factor here, but it played more of a 80% role, not 99%. Of course, for almost every single important breakthrough the people who created the invention were unwilling to do things the other way, so greed and laziness plays a role.
-
Hmm well I think humans ourselves will evolve to become taller and maybe leaner with bigger heads! (kinda like you're stereotypical alien almost). Maybe when people see UFOs its some hole in time or something caused by some future technology so the 'aliens' people see are evolved humans, who knows lol.
I think the Japanese and Chinese will do well and once stuff is sorted (politics n crap) USA will make it through. The likes of Pakistan to India I'm not so sure about, Britain is pretty much screwed though, at the rate it is I think eventually it wont even be Britain any more (there're places where you can't have British flags flying because it 'offends' people from other countries!). There's a new saying "The worst thing to be in Britain is a White British Male" lmao.
And as for Sweden, they're gonna end up scattered about in some other dimension with that black hole machine thing they've got going, due to restart in 2012 lol.
-
2012 isnt going to happen, what can be prooven without evidence can be disprooved without evidence.
-
2012 isnt going to happen, what can be prooven without evidence can be disprooved without evidence.
Yeah, if something was to happen though it would but funny, but also just a coincidence.
-
Yep, I just think something might happen as a coincidence...don't know why it would it be funny though.
Anyways, people got more important things to think about... Even daily life is has more important stuff...usually.
-
bad stuff happen all the time, and when something happens in 2012, like that sun flare, because there is going to happen atleast something in 2012, people will get hypes, as always..
-
Yes... it's part of life.
-
I heard from somewhere that: "The chances of a miracle happening (obviously a physically possible one but with small odds) is quite common."
Buy yeah something will happen in 2012 and people will be like wow it's 2012.
-
Hmm well I think humans ourselves will evolve to become taller and maybe leaner with bigger heads! (kinda like you're stereotypical alien almost). Maybe when people see UFOs its some hole in time or something caused by some future technology so the 'aliens' people see are evolved humans, who knows lol.
I highly doubt that! Natural selection, the key to darwinian evolution, requires that some features have an overwhelming likelihood to lead to death in the individual before that trait will be wiped out. This is clearly happening in animals that don't have social bonds and social allies to help them. A weak individual in a chimpanzee group has a decent chance of surviving compared to a weak alligator. Also, human heads really would not be able to get much bigger. It is already relatively difficult for a human to be born, due to the massive head-body ratio. The only other animal that commonly needs a c-section is the bulldog, which was shaped by selective breeding. Bulldogs would die out in the wild. But I digress. People who are short, overweight, or have large heads are not as readily disposed of by nature due to the fact that they live in nurturing civilizations. Now, suppose the plight of certain impoverished africans or asians were to remain the same for a couple hundred thousand years, evolution could definitely occur.
I think the Japanese and Chinese will do well and once stuff is sorted (politics n crap) USA will make it through. The likes of Pakistan to India I'm not so sure about, Britain is pretty much screwed though, at the rate it is I think eventually it wont even be Britain any more (there're places where you can't have British flags flying because it 'offends' people from other countries!). There's a new saying "The worst thing to be in Britain is a White British Male" lmao.
And as for Sweden, they're gonna end up scattered about in some other dimension with that black hole machine thing they've got going, due to restart in 2012 lol.
I have already gone into detail explaining why the japanese are not likely to get powerful soon, and it was explained in great detail...
Is it true that you can't fly a british flag in some areas of britain? That sounds ridiculous, even in the politically correct atmosphere of urban america...
-
Scotland and north ireland? :P
-
2012 is just another conspiracy... What's worse, is that something happens every year, whether it be a hurricane or an earthquake, and all these people are going to go saying how they were right.... Yeah, coincidences will happen.
UFOs.... I don't think there are such things, to be honest, though I do think there are aliens somewhere, but not necessarily intelligent. Based on how few "intelligent" (by modern human standards) species there are on earth (count 'em: 1) that still exist, I see no reason why aliens aren't just going to be closer to our every day insects. Who knows? With thousands of galaxies, there must be other life somewhere, though the biggest question is: will we ever reach them? The nearest star system is still light years away, something humans cannot hope to reach in our lifetime with current technology, and to be honest, traveling at light speed isn't something I see happening...
We are either alone in our universe, or we are not. Both theories are shocking.
-
Yeah, we would need something to keep our bodies preserved in a hibernatic state if we ever to reach another star system
-
We are either alone in our universe, or we are not. Both theories are shocking.
Well personally I think its probable that there is some kind of other life in the universe even if its just a few simple bacteria or plants.All I can hope is that some form of extraterrestrial life is found within my life-time in our solar system.
Unless we develop FTL travel we are going to be stuck in our own solar system looking out on a huge universe we can never physically explore. Whether FTL travel ever becomes a reality certainly looks doubtful now and if it is possible is hugely unlikely within the life-time of anyone alive today.
-
Well personally I think its probable that there is some kind of other life in the universe even if its just a few simple bacteria or plants.All I can hope is that some form of extraterrestrial life is found within my life-time in our solar system.
If there is life in the universe, it may not be like ours. I don't know much about the subject (I am reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins right now) but life in the universe could also have evolved based on silicon, rather than carbon. The likelihood of finding intelligent life within physical contact range is low, but we may be able to communicate if we can find it. SETI has not found any complex alien waves that would suggest alien life trying to contact us. Actually, that may be good because the aliens might want to conquer us- Stephen Hawking thinks aliens would.
Yeah, we would need something to keep our bodies preserved in a hibernatic state if we ever to reach another star system
We would to put humans into some kind of stasis that didn't kill us. People have been frozen, but they can't necessarily be thawed.
-
If there is life in the universe, it may not be like ours. I don't know much about the subject (I am reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins right now) but life in the universe could also have evolved based on silicon, rather than carbon.
You may find this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article7040864.ece) interesting.
-
We would to put humans into some kind of stasis that didn't kill us. People have been frozen, but they can't necessarily be thawed.
which would be "human" hibernatic state? :)