Housebroken Lunatic said:
So far the destruction of mankind is just as viable as trying to save it and better it... From an objective standpoint that is.
Once again, I can agree with you. But as members of this species, we shouldn't be objective. We should try to advance our species and improve ourselves.
The human population has sky-rocketed on just under a hundred years, and it shows no sign of decline. It will reach a breaking point sooner or later, and it will either lead to wars of extermination or mankind gnawing the earth dry of sustaining resources. That' not pessimistic rants, that's just facts.
Another option would be an improved living standard in currently developing and third-world nations that would result in a similar decline in birth rates and HIV infections based on higher contraceptive use. The problems you mention are real threats but not predetermined. We can avoid them. But they won't solve themselves.
And this because humans can't resist the urge to fuck and procreate like the vermin it is.
Well, we Westerners do resist (at least the procreation-part), it stands to reason the rest of the world can as well, given the right circumstances.
Again, nothing I can really argue on. *shrugs*
It's not like I could change your mind. I care, you don't. Let's leave it at that.
I think it was pretty good considering both are based on our animalistic instincts, the Id so to speak.
People need to eat in order to live. However people don't "need" to fuck, but pretty much everyone wants to, despite not actually needing it.
No, it's not "want" in the way that I want to have a new car or a bigger house, it's "want" in the sense that we have a biological urge to want it. It's part of our nature. We might change that over time but it's nothing to be ashamed of right now, really.
Because there's no point. Every action will give rise to an equal reation. So for everyone wanting to contribute to a better worldly state, there will amass an equal number of people opposing it. It's how it has always been, and there's no evidence to suggest that it would change.
That's simply wrong considering how the world changed. I could point at the EU again, but I guess you already know what I'm getting at.
There is opposition at first, sure. But once people realise that the change was for the better, they accept it and end up protecting it fiercely.
To say that "nothing ever changes, so what's the point" is wrong and lazy.
We didn't get democracy and human rights by doing nothing, you know.
Th same thing's have been said pretty much at any given time in human history. When the first lightbulb was displayed it was seen as a quantum leap in progress.
Well, it was. Electric light was a giant leap.
As was the steam-engine or the first car.
Did I mention that we made a lot of great advancements in the last few centuries?
Funny thing is that we tend to measure human progress in technological means. But the fact that human thinking and reasoning still on little more than stone age levels still linger in mamny parts of the world (even our "modern" societies), is barely taken into consideration.
Biological change is slower than cultural and technological progress, true. In fact, some scientists say that if you transplanted a stone age child into today's world and raised it like a normal kid, it would be in no way less intelligent or able than any other kid born today. Another hint to our potential.
What would happen if we transplanted a person from today ten thousand years into the future? Probably the same thing.
Our "evolution" as a species has mostly been a cultural one, that doesn't make it any less important. Instinct will always be a part of humanity (unless we remove it somehow, maybe through genetic engineering or something), but society has "shackled the beast" so to speak.
But culture isn't the same everywhere on this planet (yet), of course there are still people who seem backwards to us. And it's not surprising that the poor, the uneducated and the downtrodden are the people most prone to falling into extremism and political abuse.
Again, it's the circumstances (socio-economical, educational, political and so on) that determine how peaceful or warlike a group is. So if we could - as peacefully as possible to avoid driving people into the arms of extremists - spread wealth, democratic ideology and "modern society", countries that are currently considered gruesome and backwards could be transformed.
I mean, people still believe in invisible men in the sky, and some even goes as far as actively discourage technological advancements because it's not okay by their favoured invisible man in the sky.
True, but those (bolded) are the minority. Since the Age of Enlightenment, religion has been on a slow decline and it will continue to do so. I don't care about the others as long as they don't interfere with secular matters.
What good does technological advancements do when so many people constantly invent reasons for not even utilizing them? How much is this so called "progress" really worth?
But we
do utilize them. Every single day.
Just because a few nutters are opposed to abortion doesn't change the fact that many women's lives are saved that way.
Or the fact that some sects won't allow blood transfusions - thousands upon thousands of people are still saved.
Running water and sanitation, an enormously important advancement, saves millions of lives everyday (and could save millions more if it was available in Africa).
Democracy, protects us from arbitrary laws, persecution and murder every day.
Progress is what sets us apart from the animals who have a set of limited skills that only change on a biological (and therefore extremely slow level). Maybe we've gotten used to what progress granted us, but if we step back and actually look at our lives, we can see how important both the cultural and technological advancements are.
