The future of humanity

[Mark]

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!    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, 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.  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).  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.

[John.d.h]

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!    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.  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.



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).  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.

[-Archmage-]

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/
This isn't the doctor my Dad reads, but this guy is saying about the same thing.

[Gabbe]

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.

[Mark]

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.

[Gabbe]

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?..

[wyvern]

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.

[Mark]

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? 

[Gabbe]

iT WAS A JOKE! I cant even hack my own OS  

[Mark]

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.

[Gabbe]

yes im norway, check my profile

[Loronal]

nowhere, NASA is closing all space flights for the time being, and our technology has not advanced significantly in the past 10-30 years , the only thing I can imagine happening is another world war

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

[Gabbe]

yeah I got one of these tvs from germany, though it is red white blue FE!

[Omega]

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...

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...

[Gabbe]

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...

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...

LOL WUT? Its not about what you need, its about what you want

[John.d.h]

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.  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 , the only thing I can imagine happening is another world war

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

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.

[Mark]

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. 

[ChupaReaper]

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.

[Gabbe]

2012 isnt going to happen, what can be prooven without evidence can be disprooved without evidence.

[ChupaReaper]

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.

[ultifd]

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.

[Gabbe]

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..

[ultifd]

Yes... it's part of life.

[ChupaReaper]

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.

[Mark]

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...