dimreepr

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon after all tell me the difference between religion and superstition.

For me you can’t beat, “heart of gold” powered by the “infinite improbability drive” in “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” by Douglas Adams.

Lots of the planets flora and fauna now have interdependency with humanity, so our disappearance would have a negative impact on such that is now dependant. The planet really doesn’t care what we do; it’ll just continue to trundle through space.

Could dark matter be explained by variations in the density of the Higgs field?

It’s not pointless, if you’re the one in prison (for stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family), and in what universe do you need to supply a solution in order to ask a question? Have you even read the rest of this thread? When do I advocate people shouldn’t be punished? Part of a judge’s job is to decide the punishment, on an individual basis, so things like the ability to pay can be taken into account. Why is it inhumane to put people to work as a punishment? In England community service is a well established form of punishment. Yes I have lots of ideas, one of which would be to act on the point ‘phi for all’ made.

What version of IE are you using? edit spelling correction no e in using

Good point I guess subjectivity does have a lot to do with it, though, given the propensity for psychological manipulation within a lot of cults; it does muddy the waters somewhat. Further to the OP, a lot of religions can be said to have started as a cult, so at what point do they become a religion? Good joke btw Greg.

Sounds very Catholic to me, history shows they have engaged in many of your definitions.

What is the difference between religion and a cult? Is it simply numbers, or is the difference more fundamental? I.e. is brainwashing a factor?

There are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations) ranging from the mainstream Catholic, Anglican etc to the outright lunatics at the other end of the scale. Can you really tell me none of the more extreme denominations, or even mid table, don’t actively promote anti-societal ideas? Now back to topic; I take it from your reply you would welcome your version of societies demise?

With this, I couldn’t agree more, having found my way through my own depression. The reasons for unhappiness are many and varied and your family only wants to help (seriously), but naturally, you only consider the situation from your own point of view, they don’t see it the way you think they do. People in general are much more empathic and caring than any of us give ourselves credit for. There are happier days to come my friend, please seek the help 'phi for all' suggests. This is the thinking that motivated the OP. It is the dark side of humanity, and ill considered, because however bad things seem today, a true doomsday scenario is one in which most of us (humans) would die. Do these people think they are going to be the exception? Or are they just a bit peeved that existence didn’t give them the ideal lifestyle?

The doomsayers are growing in number (seemingly) and spreading the doom to all who will listen. My question is; are they warning us or do they, secretly, welcome the devastating scenarios they describe?

LOL yep I did... doh

sammy7, There are plenty of examples where science holds up its hands and says “I don’t know” because, as you say, it happened in the past or is unobserved. This, however, doesn’t mean inference can’t be employed as a very real and compelling answer to whatever the question may be. In astrology the observation that a star wobbles, given our clearly understood knowledge of the physics involved, it is perfectly reasonable to assume such wobbling is the result of a planet orbiting. Science has provided a myriad of evidence to support evolution (just google it), what exactly is your counter proposal to explain everyday observations of our planets flora and fauna.

So, your idea of scientific scrutiny is to listen to a biased video and blindly accept its conclusion. That’s probably why you can’t believe this is a science forum.

The ancients were just being clever, at least the elders were, they were just establishing well known everyday phenomena with a spiritual aspect and thus creating a God like figure to fear. Therefore creating a mental police force, that has no physical reality, but has a very real presence in the mind of the average citizen.

My original position saw telepathy as the only viable way for this to work, but having thought this through I see the idea has more legs. Most of what influences our daily decisions is unknown to us at the conscious level. The way our culture is all pervading in the way we think and interact with the world. The way our food and, everyday drugs, changes the chemical balance of our body and how that changes our decision making. Plants change their chemical composition when attacked and communicates this to the local, similar, plants. Who’s to say this isn’t also a global communication, and if so how this might influence us.

I have a feeling I’m going to regret this, but I’m genuinely interested in your answer. Would you care to provide some evidence to back up your assertion?

In fairness the gaia hypothesis is much more likely than your invisible cloud talking fire hazard.

I knew I shouldn’t respond to posts after my fourth glass of wine, your reply isn’t, in the cold light of day, quite so twisted, my apologies. Whilst morals have a lot to do with emotion and subjectivity, logic does have its part to play. In the scenario of the OP this statement “You wouldn't ever attack something because there's some logic that says it should die.” is false, if the negative consequences are known. I doubt anyone could logically or emotionally argue in the mosquitoes defence; we humans are the ones dying after all.

That is quite twisted logic; if something attacks you then emotion is much more likely to inform your response than any objective reasoning.

Pure gainsay isn’t very conducive to a reasonable discussion. Pure or objective logic has little to do with ethics, as ethics is based upon a moral stance and morals has more to do with emotion and subjectivity than it has to do with logic.

The reason I think its wrong is the unknown consequences outweigh the potential good. When weighing an ethical question one has to consider the consequences both positive and negative and balance the good verses the bad. This is fundamentally true of any ethical question. The lack of either negates the question, as there is nothing to balance. Ethics is a human construct; ethical questions are raised by humans and evaluated by humans. If the human race had a threat, such as you describe in post #29. The question then becomes instinctive and one of self preservation, anyone in that situation trying to advocate we not defend ourselves in the manner you suggest, would be shot or dragged away by the men in white coats. In a kill or be killed situation and you’re the innocent party there is no ethical question to answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event Between 5 and 20 mass extinction events has occurred in the planets history, none of which resulted in the total extinction of all species. edit/ sorry cross posted

I’m not surprised this sentence "It cannot happen therefore if we did it, it would be ethically wrong" makes no sense to you (me either) for a start it’s an oxymoron. No, I’m not saying that and I’m really not sure how you can come to this conclusion from my post #26. I alluded to our inability to completely eradicate mosquitoes in post #7 but even then I didn’t, actually, state it couldn’t be done. I tried to take the ambiguity out of the OP and answer it and your post #25 as directly as I could, as previously stated a rephrasing of the original question is in order. There is no ethical question to be answered if the choice is based on the survival of the human race. As to why malaria deserves being killed off, zapatos answers this quite succinctly in post #5. Greg no correction is necessary.