The Future of Mankind |
Post Reply | Page <123 |
Author | |
James Lee
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:42 |
no offense taken- I happen to agree with you. I don't think there's a single country in the world which is completely blameless about the problem, and quite a few which are doing much better about finding a solution than we are.
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:33 |
Don't take it as an offense.
The pollution is global, my dear friend, like the polluting industries you send in the poor countries. |
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:28 |
In our defense, not one of those photos were from the US. I have no clue why the US didn't jump aboard the Kyoto protocol...obviously full compliance is somewhat optional, eh monsieurs? |
|
PROGMAN
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: February 03 2004 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 2664 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:17 |
Hmm no change I hope!
|
|
CYMRU AM BYTH
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 04:59 |
Earth will become a very bad place to live, when we will pollute it completly (thanks the americans with your big cars and who don't want to reduce the pollution).
Without talking about plane's pollution, which is greatly increasing. Like Said Morrisson: "what they have done to the earth, what they have done to our fair sister?" |
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 04:51 |
In retrospect, "regressing" would definitely have been a much better word. |
|
Velvetclown
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 13 2004 Status: Offline Points: 8548 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 04:11 |
Yep !!!!!!!!!
|
|
Valarius
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 08 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 1480 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 04:04 |
Judgment Day!
|
|
Velvetclown
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 13 2004 Status: Offline Points: 8548 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 03:03 |
What a difference !!!!!!!!
|
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: May 05 2005 at 02:18 |
I'm really much more like this: psychologically speaking, anyway. |
|
mwb498
Forum Newbie Joined: April 23 2005 Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 20:43 |
I think that this is an ethical question and the answer is relative to your perspective on the purpose/existance of purpose of humans. If there is a specific purpose, then human actions can be divided into the polarities of evolving and devolving. I don't think that this is original thought on my part, but i can't think of where i've heard this idea before. |
|
the moment of defecation is worth a thousand flatulations
|
|
Pale Fire
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 25 2005 Status: Offline Points: 126 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 20:02 |
|
|
[IMG]http://eonbluepatient.com/images/fire.png">
|
|
tuxon
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 21 2004 Location: plugged-in Status: Offline Points: 5502 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 19:43 |
You can't de-evolve I think. Though the chances are bigger that we evolve into something we already were in an earlier state of our evolution than to change in something completely different, than still it would be evolving and not de-evolving. Technically mankind has achieved something that hasn't been done in natural life ever. We are able to manipulate our envirement to any extend we desire. For us it's no longer survival of the fittest, we make the world fit our needs. This is IMO a dangerous path, for our weaknesses aren't weeded out by natural selection, but are incorporated into our species, and the world around us is forced to adapt to that. Two possible consequences (there are many more BTW). Human kind will become physically weak. Life forms around us will become stronger, and the weaker life forms will perish. bla bla bla |
|
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
|
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 19:32 |
I see your point, the terms 'primitive' and 'primitivism' require a comparison...but in this case the comparison is to our current state- so I maintain that my word choice was appropriate, if somewhat clumsy. Plus, 'devolve' isn't the same as 'de-evolve'...it's a completely different word. So there! |
|
Velvetclown
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 13 2004 Status: Offline Points: 8548 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 18:48 |
|
|
Pale Fire
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 25 2005 Status: Offline Points: 126 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 18:45 |
I love the Ralph Wiggum quote
|
|
[IMG]http://eonbluepatient.com/images/fire.png">
|
|
Reed Lover
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 16 2004 Location: Sao Tome and Pr Status: Offline Points: 5187 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 18:01 |
Here's how we will look in 100 years if you check out the Rogues Gallery thread you will see that James has already begun the transformation... |
|
|
|
Reed Lover
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 16 2004 Location: Sao Tome and Pr Status: Offline Points: 5187 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 17:56 |
You cant devolve back to primitivism.The words "devolve" and "primitivism" are not copmpatible. You can say "go back to a more primitive way of life" "Primitivism" suggests that the state of being primitive or having a primitive existance is more noble or more desirable than the sophisiticated,technological way we live in modern society. Edited by Reed Lover |
|
|
|
goose
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 20 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4097 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 17:41 |
Kobaia
|
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: May 04 2005 at 17:34 |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/ got me thinking. Anyone else?
Darn, can't edit the poll. Choice #3 was supposed to include genetics and biotechnology as well as cybernetics. Edited by James Lee |
|
Post Reply | Page <123 |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |