jsispat, I still don't think you understand how this works:
If you are going to suggest that the Earth is alive, or has a cellular structure, it is up to YOU to provide an explanation as to how its mechanisms work, it is up to YOU to show how the observed evidence supports the theory, and it is up to YOU to show how this theory is better than the current one.
That's not how it works. The Earth being alive is your crackpot theory, you have to provide the evidence for it.
This does not mean pictures of sap leaking from a tree or bits of rock that look like acne.
I suppose I phrased that rather badly. I mean it in the sense that Heinlein stepped back and allowed the reader to imagine the shortcomings of the system of governance for themselves, rather than that he explicitly laid it out in the text.
It does a little bit, but if you try to explain "earth growth" just with that you are going to be out by many orders of magnitude.
Unless you count accretion in a protoplanetary disc. Oh wait...
So basically, what you are saying is that all you have is an argument from incredulity, and you can't provide any explanation for your alternative idea.
I was doing a BSc in computing, but had to drop it as my training course in the police includes its own internal work plus a foundation degree, so it wasn't feasible to study externally for the next two years.
The OU courses are modular though, so I was able to use the credits I had already earned to get a lesser certification
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.