The God Delusion

[Freakzilla]

I think it may be some kind of herd instinct. People feel safer when they're part of the "flock".

[DuneFishUK]

It's rare that someone can be an expert on everything - I personally know very little about the science of climate change. The sources I trust (eg Sir David Attenborough) say it's real so I'm inclined accept their judgement and their reasoning.

The other factor in determining my is that the changes global warming (real or imaginary) is forcing are mostly good ideas - new cars have better mileage, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and pump less shit into the kids' and my lungs.

If Global Warming is the macgruffin that makes the whole world go in that direction AND David-feckin'-Attenborough says he thinks it's real - I'll give it the benefit of the doubt (although if it turns out it's all bollocks, then that's fine too )

Edit - I forgot the point of this post: It's not blind belief of mob mentality it's calculated personal/selfish reasoning
(Was that the point? Can't remember. Got a head like a shed today.... stupid heatwave)

[Crysknife]

I just say thank God we have someone like Dawkins

If I had to listen to Harris or Dennet all day I'd go mad. I also don't think he's all that militant when compared to who he has to debate against. People in the US are along way from being free of the controlling power of evangelical conservatives and their desire to run this country from all sides, so I say more power to him.

Why focus on the positive aspects of atheism when you have people calling you a devil worshiper or worse, all while they're telling you that they know for a fact that there is a God because he speaks to them everyday? At least Dawkins admits that he might be wrong.....something a true Christian never could. There's no reason to kowtow to them in any respect. But in fact, in face-to-face debates Dawkins is always under control, soft spoken, and civil.

Harris and Dennett are fantastic, they may not get your rocks off as a militant atheist (I'm one too, and I admit, sometimes when those two are talking I want them to just cut loose and explain to their opponent how dumb they really are), but I GUARANTEE you that they do more good for atheism than Dawkins. My problem with Dawkins is NOT how militant he is (I agree, I think he's actually pretty melow), I support that completely, my problem is that he's BAD AT IT - he just fails to put together coherant arguements based on real facts about religions too often and because of this failure religious people are able to just ignore him completely as a nut. I would be happy to see him become twice as militant, if he would also become twice as good at debating scripture, which he needs a wee bit of coaching in.

Harris and Dennett simply cannot be ignored as nuts, they base every argument on absolute researched fact and simple human logic, and they are much better at this than Dawkins.

That said, I know you live in Mormon crazy land, and as an atheist you have to put up with a lot more than I do up here in happy agnostic/whatever you want land. I respect that you get more enjoyment out of watching someone like Dawkins just slam religious people - but I think you vastly underestimate how much deeper Harris and Dennett cut than Dawkins. Dawkins accomplishes only two things, he makes religious people angry (which is fun, yes) and he makes atheists laugh. The other two actually force religious people to think.

But you see, this is just a personal opinion. Some people like Harris and some people like Dawkins. Some hate both but like Hitchens. I don't really care about who is better, all I care about is that Dawkins is the FACE of atheism and the fight against the extreme religious right. For this reason he is very, very important. When he dies it will be a sad day but I am sure someone will take his place. One can not just discount the importance of Richard Dawkins.....like him or not. Yes, Harris might be the better debater but as far as character goes he's about as dry as they get.

Yes I live in Mormonland, and that has helped to shape my beliefs, but I was once religious as well. It has taken me every bit of strength I could muster to pull myself from the thoughts that were embedded in my brain from an early age. Dawkins has helped me immensely, and many millions more have benefited form him. This is all I'm saying.

Does Dawkins get a few jabs in? Sure, but if you listen to Harris he does the same thing but in a more refined way, but it is a jab none-the-less. I don't get that much enjoyment from it, but damn, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade, you know?

[A Thing of Eternity]

I just say thank God we have someone like Dawkins

If I had to listen to Harris or Dennet all day I'd go mad. I also don't think he's all that militant when compared to who he has to debate against. People in the US are along way from being free of the controlling power of evangelical conservatives and their desire to run this country from all sides, so I say more power to him.

Why focus on the positive aspects of atheism when you have people calling you a devil worshiper or worse, all while they're telling you that they know for a fact that there is a God because he speaks to them everyday? At least Dawkins admits that he might be wrong.....something a true Christian never could. There's no reason to kowtow to them in any respect. But in fact, in face-to-face debates Dawkins is always under control, soft spoken, and civil.

Harris and Dennett are fantastic, they may not get your rocks off as a militant atheist (I'm one too, and I admit, sometimes when those two are talking I want them to just cut loose and explain to their opponent how dumb they really are), but I GUARANTEE you that they do more good for atheism than Dawkins. My problem with Dawkins is NOT how militant he is (I agree, I think he's actually pretty melow), I support that completely, my problem is that he's BAD AT IT - he just fails to put together coherant arguements based on real facts about religions too often and because of this failure religious people are able to just ignore him completely as a nut. I would be happy to see him become twice as militant, if he would also become twice as good at debating scripture, which he needs a wee bit of coaching in.

Harris and Dennett simply cannot be ignored as nuts, they base every argument on absolute researched fact and simple human logic, and they are much better at this than Dawkins.

That said, I know you live in Mormon crazy land, and as an atheist you have to put up with a lot more than I do up here in happy agnostic/whatever you want land. I respect that you get more enjoyment out of watching someone like Dawkins just slam religious people - but I think you vastly underestimate how much deeper Harris and Dennett cut than Dawkins. Dawkins accomplishes only two things, he makes religious people angry (which is fun, yes) and he makes atheists laugh. The other two actually force religious people to think.

But you see, this is just a personal opinion. Some people like Harris and some people like Dawkins. Some hate both but like Hitchens. I don't really care about who is better, all I care about is that Dawkins is the FACE of atheism and the fight against the extreme religious right. For this reason he is very, very important. When he dies it will be a sad day but I am sure someone will take his place. One can not just discount the importance of Richard Dawkins.....like him or not. Yes, Harris might be the better debater but as far as character goes he's about as dry as they get.

Yes I live in Mormonland, and that has helped to shape my beliefs, but I was once religious as well. It has taken me every bit of strength I could muster to pull myself from the thoughts that were embedded in my brain from an early age. Dawkins has helped me immensely, and many millions more have benefited form him. This is all I'm saying.

Does Dawkins get a few jabs in? Sure, but if you listen to Harris he does the same thing but in a more refined way, but it is a jab none-the-less. I don't get that much enjoyment from it, but damn, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade, you know?

I get what you're saying, and while I wish someone else was the face of atheism (not Hitchins! That guy is truely useless, Dawkins is by far better), Dawkins is and that's the way it is, and I do apreciate his work, we need more people like him. I still criticise his methods though, not because I don't like him, just because I think he could be doing a LOT more damage than he currently is. I do like watching him debate, I just cringe when he gets things wrong and looses portions of the debate that he really should be winning. Nothing like Hitchens though... fuck, that guy almost looks like he's trying to loose debates!

I feel for you growing up in an area like that, and growing up religious. That's one thing I'll never have, is the experience of loosing faith, since I never had it to begin with. Maybe that makes me too mellow, or too removed.

[GamePlayer]

My point was not about being right or wrong and I appologize for injecting my personal bias, but rather that, like many religious people, their opinions aren't based on reason.

"Oh, it's not so surprising really. Mankind has always feared what it doesn't understand. Well don't fear gawd, Senator. And certainly don't fear me....not anymore"

Well, like a broken record I repeat my favorite saying, environmentalism is the new fundamentalism.

In ages past, the dinner tables of good Christians would scoff in derision at the table's lone atheist when talk turned to morality. In our current age, they've traded in their bibles....well, some have traded in their bibles....they've traded in their bibles for Al Gore, anti-globalization and hybrid cars. Now when talk of morality comes to the dinner tables of good Environmentalists, they pass judgment upon the non-believers with frowns of disdain at their environmentally indifferent ways

[SandRider]

Why would there be a correlation between (a lack of) religious faith and belief in global warming?

Because most people don't check the facts and believe what they are told. I find it ironic that people who don't believe in God so easily buy into a myth like man-made global warming.

yeah,and if FUX News did a one-eighty
and began telling you CO2 emissions
were in fact causing climate change,
you'd be a mouthpiece for clean energy ....

[Freakzilla]

Why would there be a correlation between (a lack of) religious faith and belief in global warming?

Because most people don't check the facts and believe what they are told. I find it ironic that people who don't believe in God so easily buy into a myth like man-made global warming.

yeah,and if FUX News did a one-eighty
and began telling you CO2 emissions
were in fact causing climate change,
you'd be a mouthpiece for clean energy ....

I think clean energy is a good idea regardless.

[A Thing of Eternity]

My point was not about being right or wrong and I appologize for injecting my personal bias, but rather that, like many religious people, their opinions aren't based on reason.

"Oh, it's not so surprising really. Mankind has always feared what it doesn't understand. Well don't fear gawd, Senator. And certainly don't fear me....not anymore"

Well, like a broken record I repeat my favorite saying, environmentalism is the new fundamentalism.

In ages past, the dinner tables of good Christians would scoff in derision at the table's lone atheist when talk turned to morality. In our current age, they've traded in their bibles....well, some have traded in their bibles....they've traded in their bibles for Al Gore, anti-globalization and hybrid cars. Now when talk of morality comes to the dinner tables of good Environmentalists, they pass judgment upon the non-believers with frowns of disdain at their environmentally indifferent ways

I agree with you, but I think it's a far step from religion to a belief centered in real life. I know that many(most?) people talking about environmentalism don't do their research - but I think there is a huge difference between me, who has looked out into swarms of garbage in the Pacific and knows a thing or two about nutrition and how much poison we're feeding our children, and grew up on a farm talking with farmers about what happens to their animals when the neighbors spray pesticides, and someone who believes in the supernatural.

I totally get your comparison, and I think you're right that the similarities are freightening, but I think that it is not a full on switch. We may be replacing faith in religion with faith in environmentalism, but this is not an equally blind faith.

[GamePlayer]

Adequately considering the "crutch" itself matters little to me. I'm not passing judgment on the ideology (at least not in regards to this particular point) so much as passing judgment on the tyranny of prevailing social norms. Like most of my social commentary, it's a call to reason rather than a deconstruction of the belief system in question. It's about the freedom to choose your ideology without suffering the ignominy of an overbearing social trend. People adore the concept of moral superiority and will look for it in a bible, a Richard Dawkin's book or an eco-documentary. The salient point is it doesn't matter if a person is religious, atheist or environmentalist. One fundamentalist is as bad as another.

For most people, to be a person of moral character in our current society, one MUST adhere to the tenants of environmentalist ideology. It matters not if environmentalist concerns have more tangible legitimacy than the spiritual concerns of judeo-christian philosophy. The ideology has long since supplanted the legitimacy. And quite frankly, there's little point in debating the merits of environmentalism with an eco-nazi just as there's little point engaging in a religious debate with a jesus freak.

Now, having said that, I don't mean to come down hard upon only environmentalism. The fundamentalist mindset and the need for moral superiority are human failings that infect any human institution or endeavour. Again, whether it's secularism, catholicism or environmentalism, people will use and abuse their crutch all the same. You, for example, often debate to exercise your left-wing ideology, much in the same way Freak-Z uses discussions to exercise his right-wing ideology. We all do it. This post of mine is a perfect example of my own libertarian ideology in which I'm using the abhorrence for environmentalist fundamentalism to color the need to be free from such trendy social tyranny. That's really all there is to it.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Adequately considering the "crutch" itself matters little to me. I'm not passing judgment on the ideology (at least not in regards to this particular point) so much as passing judgment on the tyranny of prevailing social norms. Like most of my social commentary, it's a call to reason rather than a deconstruction of the belief system in question. It's about the freedom to choose your ideology without suffering the ignominy of an overbearing social trend. People adore the concept of moral superiority and will look for it in a bible, a Richard Dawkin's book or an eco-documentary. The salient point is it doesn't matter if a person is religious, atheist or environmentalist. One fundamentalist is as bad as another.

For most people, to be a person of moral character in our current society, one MUST adhere to the tenants of environmentalist ideology. It matters not if environmentalist concerns have more tangible legitimacy than the spiritual concerns of judeo-christian philosophy. The ideology has long since supplanted the legitimacy. And quite frankly, there's little point in debating the merits of environmentalism with an eco-nazi just as there's little point engaging in a religious debate with a jesus freak.

Now, having said that, I don't mean to come down hard upon only environmentalism. The fundamentalist mindset and the need for moral superiority are human failings that infect any human institution or endeavour. Again, whether it's secularism, catholicism or environmentalism, people will use and abuse their crutch all the same. You, for example, often debate to exercise your left-wing ideology, much in the same way Freak-Z uses discussions to exercise his right-wing ideology. We all do it. This post of mine is a perfect example of my own libertarian ideology in which I'm using the abhorrence for environmentalist fundamentalism to color the need to be free from such trendy social tyranny. That's really all there is to it.

Good stuff to think on. I agree with it in general, but at some point we do have to set moral standards and enforce them, or our society would degenerate. I think a balance between enforced morality/social norm/whatever you want to call it and the ability to question and revise that morality is important. On paper I like the concept of not pushing my morality onto other people - but in the end it boils down to self defense. Environmentalism is a good (but not the only) example: if I believe that we are doing serious damage to the world and to ourselves I would be an absolutley suicidal lunatic to not try and transfer that belief onto other people, because this is not a case where I can have my own personal morals and live by them, while allowing other people to live by theirs (my GF is a good example of this. It is against her morals to consume any animal product, however, she does not expect other people to conform to this, and acknowledges that humans are indeed at the top of the food chain, and are naturally omnivorus. She will never push her veganism on someone else, not even onto me, who she has to see every day). This is a case where everyone else's morals have the ability to do serious damage to me, so my pushing/educating people on my beliefs is not simple spreading of dogma - it is literal self defense.

I agree with you on paper, but I think that in the real world we might have to accept that without people pushing their beliefs on eachother (like the belief that black people are indeed human) we'd be living in a shit hole. At the same time we do have to watch this carefully so that it doesn't become totalitarian, liberty is important. Obviously the whole "moral superiority" thing you are totally correct about, that needs to be thrown in the trash. I consider the environment important, but I try to avoid feeling superior to someone driving a hummer (though those people should still be kicked in the balls) because I drive a car, and I wouldn't want someone who rides a bike passing judgment on me.

[Crysknife]

Adequately considering the "crutch" itself matters little to me. I'm not passing judgment on the ideology (at least not in regards to this particular point) so much as passing judgment on the tyranny of prevailing social norms. Like most of my social commentary, it's a call to reason rather than a deconstruction of the belief system in question. It's about the freedom to choose your ideology without suffering the ignominy of an overbearing social trend. People adore the concept of moral superiority and will look for it in a bible, a Richard Dawkin's book or an eco-documentary. The salient point is it doesn't matter if a person is religious, atheist or environmentalist. One fundamentalist is as bad as another.

For most people, to be a person of moral character in our current society, one MUST adhere to the tenants of environmentalist ideology. It matters not if environmentalist concerns have more tangible legitimacy than the spiritual concerns of judeo-christian philosophy. The ideology has long since supplanted the legitimacy. And quite frankly, there's little point in debating the merits of environmentalism with an eco-nazi just as there's little point engaging in a religious debate with a jesus freak.

Now, having said that, I don't mean to come down hard upon only environmentalism. The fundamentalist mindset and the need for moral superiority are human failings that infect any human institution or endeavour. Again, whether it's secularism, catholicism or environmentalism, people will use and abuse their crutch all the same. You, for example, often debate to exercise your left-wing ideology, much in the same way Freak-Z uses discussions to exercise his right-wing ideology. We all do it. This post of mine is a perfect example of my own libertarian ideology in which I'm using the abhorrence for environmentalist fundamentalism to color the need to be free from such trendy social tyranny. That's really all there is to it.

Good stuff to think on. I agree with it in general, but at some point we do have to set moral standards and enforce them, or our society would degenerate. I think a balance between enforced morality/social norm/whatever you want to call it and the ability to question and revise that morality is important. On paper I like the concept of not pushing my morality onto other people - but in the end it boils down to self defense. Environmentalism is a good (but not the only) example: if I believe that we are doing serious damage to the world and to ourselves I would be an absolutley suicidal lunatic to not try and transfer that belief onto other people, because this is not a case where I can have my own personal morals and live by them, while allowing other people to live by theirs (my GF is a good example of this. It is against her morals to consume any animal product, however, she does not expect other people to conform to this, and acknowledges that humans are indeed at the top of the food chain, and are naturally omnivorus. She will never push her veganism on someone else, not even onto me, who she has to see every day). This is a case where everyone else's morals have the ability to do serious damage to me, so my pushing/educating people on my beliefs is not simple spreading of dogma - it is literal self defense.

I agree with you on paper, but I think that in the real world we might have to accept that without people pushing their beliefs on eachother (like the belief that black people are indeed human) we'd be living in a shit hole. At the same time we do have to watch this carefully so that it doesn't become totalitarian, liberty is important. Obviously the whole "moral superiority" thing you are totally correct about, that needs to be thrown in the trash. I consider the environment important, but I try to avoid feeling superior to someone driving a hummer (though those people should still be kicked in the balls) because I drive a car, and I wouldn't want someone who rides a bike passing judgment on me.

Well said!

The simple truth about social libertarianism is that if everyone really lived that way, this planet would one fucked up rock(worse than it already is!). There would be no cohesion; everything from treating disease to deciding on going to mars would be "trendy social tyranny". At some point you have to take a stand on something. There might have been a time when these ideals could be lived to one's heart's content, but we just don't have the land or resources to keep the status quo. We are entering an age of social responsibility where our actions as a whole affect every living thing on this planet.

Sadly, I’m a pessimist about such things and I think it’s going to take a minor (or major) mass extinction event before any survivors learn this lesson. Ahh, but the cycle will repeat. Humans are good at that.

[GamePlayer]

Let's maintain some perspective here. This isn't some end-of-the-world slippery slope. At any rate, people see self-defense differently. The desire to defend one's self against environmental harm is no different than the desire to defend one's self from social harm. Self defense is just an excuse to justify your moral superiority, every bit as much as people abuse their children as emotional blackmail to justify everything from persecution of homosexuals to prime time witch hunts like "To Catch A Predator." Again, the ideology supplants the pragmatism. It isn't about the practicalities or even commonalities of environmental concerns between different sects of society, but the tyranny of a blindly followed social stigma. The environmentalist movement is providing the same "moral good" framework for modern society that religion provided in generations past and it's crimes grow in direct proportion to it's pervasiveness. Again, that's not some phenomena unique to environmentalism and it is by no means my intention to single it out. However, I believe the greatest check and balance we have ever had in human history against our own best intentions has been the desire for freedom, for liberty.

Besides, cohesion isn't some faultless ideology without blame. Try telling the millions of persecuted homosexuals who lived through hundreds of years of "national cohesion" when they were supposed to be living in our democracies that cherished liberty, freedom and rights for all. People resist change without even consciously realizing it and for all kinds of reasons, fear being one of the biggest. The word "libertarianism" came up in this topic as only a "best fit" to describe my own philosophy and yet already the discussion has leaped into a fear-driven defense on the unrealistic ills social libertarianism and anarchism. People say they want change but the truth is people are afraid. They are afraid of losing what they have. They afraid of making a mistake. They afraid of losing the "support mechanism" of education, security and public services that our currently inept and inefficient post-democracies currently provide. And to paraphrase one of my favorite films, most people are not yet ready for change. And many are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that will fight to protect it.

Digressing back to the issue originally debated, I do believe that the democratic ideology and the freedoms inherent in it are the highest priority. If it makes any difference, I do share some concern for the environment. However, I also only accept the environment as a harshly indifferent reality with respect to the grander scope of humans and human destiny as a species. The human race was not born to maintain the status quo and I accept sustainability only in as much as it aids us towards growing beyond the providing prison of our birth known as this Earth.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Let's maintain some perspective here. This isn't some end-of-the-world slippery slope. At any rate, people see self-defense differently. The desire to defend one's self against environmental harm is no different than the desire to defend one's self from social harm. Self defense is just an excuse to justify your moral superiority, every bit as much as people abuse their children as emotional blackmail to justify everything from persecution of homosexuals to prime time witch hunts like "To Catch A Predator." Again, the ideology supplants the pragmatism. It isn't about the practicalities or even commonalities of environmental concerns between different sects of society, but the tyranny of a blindly followed social stigma. The environmentalist movement is providing the same "moral good" framework for modern society that religion provided in generations past and it's crimes grow in direct proportion to it's pervasiveness. Again, that's not some phenomena unique to environmentalism and it is by no means my intention to single it out. However, I believe the greatest check and balance we have ever had in human history against our own best intentions has been the desire for freedom, for liberty.

Besides, cohesion isn't some faultless ideology without blame. Try telling the millions of persecuted homosexuals who lived through hundreds of years of "national cohesion" when they were supposed to be living in our democracies that cherished liberty, freedom and rights for all. People resist change without even consciously realizing it and for all kinds of reasons, fear being one of the biggest. The word "libertarianism" came up in this topic as only a "best fit" to describe my own philosophy and yet already the discussion has leaped into a fear-driven defense on the unrealistic ills social libertarianism and anarchism. People say they want change but the truth is people are afraid. They are afraid of losing what they have. They afraid of making a mistake. They afraid of losing the "support mechanism" of education, security and public services that our currently inept and inefficient post-democracies currently provide. And to paraphrase one of my favorite films, most people are not yet ready for change. And many are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that will fight to protect it.

Digressing back to the issue originally debated, I do believe that the democratic ideology and the freedoms inherent in it are the highest priority. If it makes any difference, I do share some concern for the environment. However, I also only accept the environment as a harshly indifferent reality with respect to the grander scope of humans and human destiny as a species. The human race was not born to maintain the status quo and I accept sustainability only in as much as it aids us towards growing beyond the providing prison of our birth known as this Earth.

I think you're probably not far from where my philosophy could end up in another 20 years, but for now I'm obviously a bit away from where you are, and I could easily go in the other direction in coming years.

As far as getting off Earth - trust me, we need to keep our numbers down and our consumption sustainable, becuase we could realistically kill ourselves off long before we get off this rock. I would be extremely surprised if we become capable in the next five hundred to a thousand years of either getting to a suitable planet in another system (which I believe would actually be immoral if there is pre-existing life on that planet), or terraforming a nearby planet, either in the centauri system or our own, like mars. We have no choice but to live as though we were stuck on this planet forever - becuase as far as we, or anyone in the next 20-50 generations, is concerned we are stuck here.

[Crysknife]

A few points:

By fighting for the environment today, we fight for the liberties and freedoms of future generations. We take away their opportunities and potential if we hand them over a trashed, used up world. Where is the liberty in that?

Many people who fight against environmental change are religious fundamentalists that think the world is going to end soon anyway. Some of the best selling books of all time is a fictional series depicting the end times with the antichrist and all. The authors meant it as a future reality that WILL take place one day and they make no apologies about it. Why should we give their view any shred of respect? And based on the above point about the future, why shouldn’t anyone not believing in environmentalism be laughed out of the room, global warming or no global warming?

And I have a screaming baby demanding attention so that's all for now!

Do you have kids GamePlayer?

[GamePlayer]

I think you're probably not far from where my philosophy could end up in another 20 years, but for now I'm obviously a bit away from where you are, and I could easily go in the other direction in coming years.

As far as getting off Earth - trust me, we need to keep our numbers down and our consumption sustainable, becuase we could realistically kill ourselves off long before we get off this rock. I would be extremely surprised if we become capable in the next five hundred to a thousand years of either getting to a suitable planet in another system (which I believe would actually be immoral if there is pre-existing life on that planet), or terraforming a nearby planet, either in the centauri system or our own, like mars. We have no choice but to live as though we were stuck on this planet forever - becuase as far as we, or anyone in the next 20-50 generations, is concerned we are stuck here.

IMO, therein lies the problem: most misjudge our capabilities for space exploration and most are obsessed with short-term thinking.

Space colonization, as I've said many a time before, is not some far-future pipe dream filled with warp-drives and lightsabers. We have the technological capability TODAY to begin off-world habitation. Space stations, orbital colonies, space economies; we could begin it all now. But everyone is sold on Star Trek as the future and ignorantly assume space travel is an inevitability of our species. A right to be taken for granted that we will have "some day." A future we don't have to worry about because it's so "far away."

IMO, sustainability offers no long term solution. When we exhaust the limited resources on this planet, we could significantly hinder our ability to depart from it, or worse, become incapable of ever leaving it. It also assumes an unrealistic scenario; that mankind, despite never doing so in it's entire history, can stop growing. That is why I oppose this new mind set of sustainability. The ultimate tenets of sustainability are inherently static; they seek to create a questionable equilibrium and assume by default the future will "take care of itself." Environmentalism ultimately demands we ignore the future beyond what we can see ten miles down the road. There is only the sustainable near-future; anything else beyond that is heresy or nonsense.

See the age of space exploration is both a blessing and a curse. It has enabled us to peer into the future. But now that the singularity of space exploration has passed and the collective realization of life off-world has been perceived, it has only made us more aware of our current limitations. In a society obsessed with instant gratification, the last thing we want to hear is about long-term goals. So only near-future attainable goals concern most now, which is why the inert, static ideology of environmentalism appeals to so many. Well, I will agree with the environmentalists on one issue; mankind's short-sightedness is indeed a recipe for disaster.

I don't believe we can assume the future will see to itself. I don't believe we can assume that as long as we sustain ourselves in a stunted perpetuating cycle that we'll discover a solution to solve our growth and resource/energy problems. We may indeed discover a solution to eliminate our dependency on limited resources and satisfy our future needs....but we may not. The age of space exploration has given mankind a terrible purpose and we know what we have to do. Our world cannot sustain the human species as a GROWING ORGANISM. No one ever considers that if humanity had to grow to a certain size and industrial capacity to attain space flight, what happens to future possibilities if we force ourselves to stop growing? What if sustainability is the antithesis to the possibility for space exploration? If you want some good stuff to think on, well there it is

And based on the above point about the future, why shouldn’t anyone not believing in environmentalism be laughed out of the room, global warming or no global warming?

Do you have kids GamePlayer?

I sure hope that question was a joke

I'll let the question about children hang for now and instead give you a chance to think about why you asked.

[Crysknife]

Thanks for the chance, no thinking necessary.

I wonder what the conservatives would think if we started pouring money into space habitats. You can't win with those guys.

[A Thing of Eternity]

IMO, therein lies the problem: most misjudge our capabilities for space exploration and most are obsessed with short-term thinking.

Space colonization, as I've said many a time before, is not some far-future pipe dream filled with warp-drives and lightsabers. We have the technological capability TODAY to begin off-world habitation. Space stations, orbital colonies, space economies; we could begin it all now. But everyone is sold on Star Trek as the future and ignorantly assume space travel is an inevitability of our species. A right to be taken for granted that we will have "some day." A future we don't have to worry about because it's so "far away."

BUT - this kind of space habitat is useless to us (aside from as practice) until we have a way to secure resources from somewhere other than Earth, and to do so cheaply - the amount of investment needed to create a space station that could house even a thousand people would probably bankrupt our entire planet. A habitat that could not only house a thousand people, but continually provide food and oxygen to a thousand people would probably cost everything the USA could scape together for the next hundred years. If anyone has any numbers as to what the current space station's price tag that would be helpful, because it would represent probably 0.00001 of what such a habitat would cost - and that habitat would still be nearly useless (again, other than as practice/future base of operations) because it would house so few people.

I'm all about space exploration and expansion, but we need our technology to advance far further before space colonization becomes viable - right now it is indeed possible, but the resources needed would be incomprehensibly vast. I'm not one of those people expecting hyperdrive before we start colonizing, but I really think it will be many hundreds of years before we're capable of any useful colonization... unless the singularity comes soon, in which case I do think we could get going sooner - assuming that the machine gods want to help us out for some reason.

If you're interested, I would love to split this off into a debate about space colonization, the how/when/if/why and so forth. I think that would be a really fun debate, and I'm always looking to flex my creative muscles when it comes to space tech.

EDIT:

Okay, this is Wiki junk info, but it should give us a ballpark of what the space station costs:

The most cited figure of an overall cost estimate for the ISS ranges from 35 billion to 100 billion USD.[80] ESA, the only agency actually stating potential overall costs, estimates €100 billion for the entire station over a period of 30 years.

Granted, if we could move manufacturing (and mining, otherwise we'd still have to push all that material into orbit, which is insane) off-world that would drop these costs dramatically, but even a conservative estimate, say... 10 billion to build another station just like this one that is currently costing us 35-100 billion, we'd still be looking at something at LEAST a couple hundred times the size, and more likely closer to a thousand times the size in order to house and feed and supply oxygen for 1,000 people...

... that would cost between 1 trillion and 10 trillion dollars - and that's assuming we can get costs down to 1/3 of the absolute lowest estimate of what it costs us now. And even the size was extremely conservative considering this thing would have to house gigantic farms to feed everyone.


I'm not saying this is all impossible, but I think that it is not even remotely close to viable for now, even though my estimates are obviously lacking loads of necessary info.

[Redstar]

I often wonder why we can't just do it for free. =/

[Crysknife]

I often wonder the same thing, but a true socialist society is a utopia that could never be with humans being what they are. Maybe one day we will get close enough to make some difference.

[Redstar]

I often wonder the same thing, but a true socialist society is a utopia that could never be with humans being what they are. Maybe one day we will get close enough to make some difference.

Then again there's always, ya know, slavery...

[Eyes High]

I often wonder the same thing, but a true socialist society is a utopia that could never be with humans being what they are. Maybe one day we will get close enough to make some difference.

Then again there's always, ya know, slavery...

NO THANK YOU! I like my freedom too much.

We did need to take care of our world and its resources. Not only for the next generation but for ours as well.

[Redstar]

I often wonder the same thing, but a true socialist society is a utopia that could never be with humans being what they are. Maybe one day we will get close enough to make some difference.

Then again there's always, ya know, slavery...

NO THANK YOU! I like my freedom too much.

I don't see the big deal. Put our prisoners of war and prisoners of "fuck you society" to work doing something meaningful.

Or set up a whole bunch of tax breaks and incentives for the whole thing. But really, nothing much matters until the UN starts getting some respect or some other organization can create international standards. People are just lazy.

[GamePlayer]

no thinking necessary.

Mores the pity

IMO, therein lies the problem: most misjudge our capabilities for space exploration and most are obsessed with short-term thinking.

Space colonization, as I've said many a time before, is not some far-future pipe dream filled with warp-drives and lightsabers. We have the technological capability TODAY to begin off-world habitation. Space stations, orbital colonies, space economies; we could begin it all now. But everyone is sold on Star Trek as the future and ignorantly assume space travel is an inevitability of our species. A right to be taken for granted that we will have "some day." A future we don't have to worry about because it's so "far away."

BUT - this kind of space habitat is useless to us (aside from as practice) until we have a way to secure resources from somewhere other than Earth, and to do so cheaply - the amount of investment needed to create a space station that could house even a thousand people would probably bankrupt our entire planet. A habitat that could not only house a thousand people, but continually provide food and oxygen to a thousand people would probably cost everything the USA could scape together for the next hundred years. If anyone has any numbers as to what the current space station's price tag that would be helpful, because it would represent probably 0.00001 of what such a habitat would cost - and that habitat would still be nearly useless (again, other than as practice/future base of operations) because it would house so few people.

I'm not saying this is all impossible, but I think that it is not even remotely close to viable for now, even though my estimates are obviously lacking loads of necessary info.

I would think the Ansari X-Prize would be enough of a wake up call that people would realize exploitation of space need not be a GDP-level expensive. But lack of imagination is just one of the biggest problems this society has. Nonetheless, I agree this is all way off point.

[Crysknife]

Oh, I pity something.

[Freakzilla]

You, for example, often debate to exercise your left-wing ideology, much in the same way Freak-Z uses discussions to exercise his right-wing ideology. We all do it.

I'm not really that far right, most of the time I do it just to spark some discussion.