The Big Picture: Once Upon a Time in The Future

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 18 NEXT
 

The SS mountain dew? This is where all the nice capitalism has brought us. Also voting for candidates on who wants to go to space via sms would make more money than the entire mission costs. Bob is right, the way we're heading is this. Do you think the space ships will be like the cars in formula 1? The good thing I see is that private sector sounds like more money (potential) and more freedom, although might be just the opposite, if you consider having to paint the shuttle green a restriction. On the other hand since when has the government done anything right, and it appears the more responsibility you give them, the more thy screw up. There should be a balance somewhere here.

I can't say i share your opinion just because i dont want the aliens to see how a bunch of jerks we are, but i really respect it.

God, fuck the humanity, i want cities on Mars too! I would even buy property there and live like in the old western movies.

Oh my god that canceled it?! This makes me quite upset. At least we know who to blame when the Earth is melting and there is nothing to get us off of it before it does so.

As much as it pains me to say this but if we can't keep our own planet in order then we have no business going to others. Also the reason many other nations, like India, can afford such scientific initiatives is because of western aid funds being used where they're not intended...

Cities on Mars do sound awfully tempting but being on the left of the political spectrum and having grown up in a country with an entrenched welfare system (If politicians tried to touch the NHS I'm pretty sure there would be a revolution) I'm on the side of the argument that money should first go to things such as food, housing, education, etc.

Cities on Mars and the Moon would be cool but what benefits would we get from them beyond the novelty of hsving them?

One word: Skylon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon )

The UK and a few other countries in association are working on it, it would seem, what with the project being at least in-part government backed and all. And hey, this way the control of space exploration is finally out of primarily American hands and into the hands of multinational efforts.

Frankly, I'm glad NASA's handing over more and more to private firms - and they are. They're already making serious efforts to transfer cargo orbiter responsibilities to SpaceX, and that company's presently busy trying to prove its Dragon orbiters are capable of transporting human crew safely as well.

It's a shame it's set space exploration back right now, however, in the long run private companies getting involved is no bad thing. It certainly makes individuals and space flight coming together increasingly likely, and it's also increasingly likely that business will take (financial) risks in the economic development of space.

And S.S. Mountain Dew? Come off it. Who are you going to advertise to while exploring seemingly uninhabited space? It'll either be a grotty old mining/prospecting ship with little besides a company logo slapped on the side - if the meeting is unexpected - or it'll be an expected meeting and no government would allow a private firm to do that. Not unless corporations have already taken over government, and then it's a moot point. For a ship to have reason to carry advertisements and be in a position where it might be more likely to bump into aliens than established route-travelling shipping, space-flight would have to be so ubiquitous as for it to not matter any more.

One government, with a limited budget to spend on a lot of things before they even consider space, is going to be a great deal less likely to invest in projects that might allow off-world industry, research and habitation than various private companies, established and start-up.

Hell, if every government on earth stopped spending insane amounts of money on national defence, not only could we end world hunger, but there would be plenty left for space exploration.

The S.S. Mountain Dew?
Bob, I dislike trolling but, you are an idiot. Yeah, we should focus more on space travel, simply because if we don't then we'll die here on this planet of stagnation. But this childish tantrum isn't going to change anything, if you want to change something, then get off your ass and do something about it.

Lots of people look at the escapist, so I'm sure you were figuring, hey, if I talk about how I feel here then lots of people will see it, thereby spreading the word. That would be wonderful. If you didn't sound like a whiny fourteen year old prepubescent who just found out that he wasn't allowed to stare at boobs during conversation.

Grow up, and present your argument with the right balance of passion and creativity; or, failing that, logically and sensibly. Not this idiotic rant.

Ugh. Honestly, y'know why I think the shuttle program is lacking in support? Because space is boring. Seriously.

I used to be the biggest space nerd there was. I still have a 36-page report I wrote on space when I was eight (Ok, so there are a lot of pictures, I admit, but at the time that was still a huge accomplishment for me). I spent months lovingly making that, foraging for any info or pictures I could find in the forty-book family encyclopaedia and my backlog of that science magazine I'm not really sure how we started getting. Space was the thing for me.

But seriously, the shuttle program? Yawn. If anything the exploration of space by man has killed my desire to ever see space. Zero-G seems kind of like a cool thing to experience. Not the same kind of cool as skydiving or bungee-jumping something like that, though. More on level with "It'd be cool to go to Egypt".

Because, y'know, space isn't this cool and unknown place that it was back in the days of the great sci-fi writers. We pretty much know what's up there and it's pretty dull and useless. Turns out a rock in space is still just a rock. Colonisation of Mars? Please.

At the end of the day I am left to wonder if we really learned anything useful. At all. Or if people just hang on to the religious idea of space as some amazing undiscovered wilderness out of sheer wishful thinking and a desire for something more than this. Is having been to space an achievement, when you get right down to it? Possibly, but in the great game of life it's probably on level with that one you get for fishing up a rare fish in Ogrimmar. Y'know, the one that shows that you made an effort but didn't get you anywhere.

ok lets get to the crux of the problem.

The majority of human beings are fucking morons, content to sleepwalk through life until their diet of reality tv and ben and jerrys finally kills them. Self intrest is hard-wired into every human combine that with stupidity and too much individual freedom and you get a society where everyone could care less about the human race or progress or society at large so long as they have a job, a place to rest their head and a tv set.

China will win the space race, because they could give a shit about individual libertys they are the opposite to the west and quite frankly I would not want to live there.

What we in the west need is less emphasis on the rights of the individual and more collective responsibilities without throwing away the basic rights we have as humans to air our views.. this will be a tough balancing act to say the least... we need people to accept some things...

1.High taxes are nessecary. If we are to be a society, a colloctive group of people working together we need to accept the reality of taxation or do away with money altogether. Personal wealth at the expense of society in general is an evil that should no longer be excused. How many 'captains of industry' made themselves nice fat bonuses by moving their industry to china or india and created growing levels of unemployment in their own backyard? All for extra profit on industries that were already profitable. How many of these rich bastards then complain noisily about the taxes the state needs to pay police and prisons due to the growing crime rate caused by this growing unemployment, not to mention the added pollution and health problems thanks to all the goods being shipped globally that could have been made on our own doorstep. Taxes are needed, as are curbs on unregulated and destructive forms of capitalism that make the minority rich at the expense of the majortity.

2. Government is not inherently evil and with democracy and a free press it can be 'cautiously' trusted. I do not, nor have I ever bought into the notion that private enterprise is in someway more inherently trustworthy than government. I dont particularly trust politicians, but if they cross lines the democratic system means I can vote the bastards out. In britain healthcare is run by the government, and in all fairness it has not always been run as well as it could, though the biggest pitfall for the nhs has always been the destructive forces of free market capitalism putting a price on the worth of human life and costing a socialised system of healthcare that worked perfectly for more than 60 years too much money. Private companies in the deregulated post regan/thatcher era are less and less accountable for their actions, nor is the banking sector. With large campaign contributions and lobbying democracy was privatised LONG ago and no longer serves the people but a small number of highly wealthy individuals. If china is the perfect example of a country exposed to the tyranny of the state, of government grown too large and powerful at the expense of its citizens, then the west is an example of libatarianism and free enterprise grown too big and powerful at the expense of the individual and in the march away from communism/socialism we created a different kind of tyranny, the tyrrany of profit. Nothing beneficial can happen to our society unless theres money to be made, and everything is driven by greed. Theres no immediate profit to be made from space exploration so private enterprise has often shyed away from space but as this changes so will the corporations attitude towards space exploration. Unfortunately with free market intrests driving it the results will not be benign (as neither will the chinese's)

3. Profit is not everything. Some things should be done for the betterment of mankind, when fleming discovered penecillin he made it free to everyone. Then an american went and patented it and made billions. This was probably the dawn of the new era in many ways, ideas of benevolence gave way to the prodestant cult of profit and the world suffered as a consequence. some areas, such as telecommunications can benefit from competiton, other areas such as healthcare, public transport do not. We should realise that going into space will not make us rich, nor should we do it for that reason, capitalism and capitalist instincts need to be put on the back burner and we need to do this because space exploration is a giant step forward to everyone.

I've never been a hardcore trekkie but take a look at rodenberrys universe, a setting where humans have abolished money and do things for the betterment of everyone. Ironically it was an american, a country that was totally diametriclly opposed to communism/socialsim that presented a future where everyone lived in a communist/socialit utopia...

and it actually looked pretty good.

Basically then, to get the human race back on track we need to stop listening to the worst of us (fox news) and look for a better future where the worst aspects of us a as a species a put aside and we learn to work for everyone.

Actually, the european space agency has commited enourmous funding towards a manned mars mission by 2025

I do feel a little sad that manned space flight is sounding its death-kneel. However, if the last twenty some odd years have taught me anything MovieBob (or is it BigPictureBob now?) it's that humanity does NOT deserve to see what wonders lie elsewhere in the universe. Not only do all those other problems still exist, they actually seem to be getting WORSE.

As such, if I made first contact? I would probably tell the aliens to come back after the radiation from World War III dies down and maybe they'll find some intelligent non-selfdestruvtive lifeforms worth talking to.

Fensfield:
One word: Skylon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon )

It doesn't look like it can get to Mars.

Don Reba:

Fensfield:
One word: Skylon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon )
[four more paragraphs]

It doesn't look like it can get to Mars.

And? Read the rest of the post, maybe.

Maybe I oughtn't have written 'one word', but that's pretty nit-picky. The point is that private firms aren't the blight the video rant was making them out to be. They have the potential to do things far greater than NASA was even planning to do.

The mention of Skylon's just an address to the space shuttle and the perceived consequences of the supposed lack of replacement and, as others have said, the European Space Agency's aiming to go to Mars by 2025. Indeed, the Dragon orbiter is, in theory and with further development, capable of doing everything Constellation's orbiter could have done - and it's further along in development, too. Combine that with Skylon, or whatever else among the various private projects wins out, maybe? There you go, theoretically capable of reaching Mars. Just like Constellation.

The Constellation program was just as viable as the private start-ups. And besides that, I forgot to mention that the 'S.S. Mountain Dew' argument fundamentally misunderstood (or deliberately mis-portrayed) the role of the private firms. They don't build and launch their own spacecraft, they compete for and perform work on behalf of government space agencies, often using tools of their own design - be those tools factories, R&D staff, or spacecraft.

Even before private firms were trying to build their own vessels, they were doing this sort of thing - I hope you don't believe NASA built all the different parts of the shuttle fleet themselves. Of course that meant the shuttles were COVERED with advertising for those firms and.. oh wait.

[Stupid lagging browser looked like it had crashed - double post.]

I'd like to write a novel about how I agree, add some more points and in general just discuss what you took up... buuuuut I'm a little bit short on time and frankly I'm not at my minds best right now (No, no alcohol, I'm a sobersit, just a bit tired) so all I'm gonna say is, I agree on all the points and I'd do the same.

Seriously, how long would peace actually hold? And yes, I'm a "bad guy" too, I prefer spacefaring instead of feeding kids in farawayistan, sorry for that.

People are all fairly unanimous in the 'one day we'll live in space' thing. I bet if you asked any child what life will be like in the future they'll say 2 things: Flying Cars and Living in Space. So if we're all so damned sure that we will get there as a species why is no-one making the actual effort to do it? It's like me saying 'I'm going to have a 6-pack in the near future' but never getting around to the actual sit-ups part of it.

dark-amon:

daavisb:
the part with "humanity hasnt shown me kindness, so i wont either" was kinda stupid. illogical if you want.

Actually, it's more of a eye for an eye. Not illogical, at worst unethical.

OT: I'm actually really suprised that the US has so to say closed the doors on their space-program, considering they where first on the moon it's a suprise they give up so easely considering all the progression the rest of the world is making.
BTW ain't USA members of the international space station that courses around our little planet? How are they gonna contribute to the station if they stop launches?

no I wouldnt say unethical, and not even eye for an eye. he is talking about "himself", that he is so bad, that he wont change, because hes bad. he is society. thats why his nihilistic way is in the far beginning illogical.

well the americans were the first to land on the moon, and they won in that race. (it doesent mean that the moon belongs to the americans :D )but they have other things they want to concentrate on. humanity hasnt shown him kindness, ha. and now is the time humanity wants to be kind, but he doesent want them to, because space travel is way too cool.
well, and if the americans want to stay a part of the space traveling programm, they will have to contribute. but they dont have to be the ones who make it happen. there are other countries who could take the lead (like he said). the main thing is that they have to work together, so the americans wont lose any new information.

Well I can cure world hunger pretty easily, all the world has to do is give up eating beef, the feed that goes to cows could easily feed the world. But it involves us actually giving something up to solve a problem and anyone who tries to push for that is commiting political suicide, so they just rag on NASA.

Anyways guys don't worry about it, in 2012 when the interdiminsional computer aliens phase in from dimension 10 and appoint me manager of the universe, I'll have all the reality TV douchebags fired into the sun. Then we can get down to the only true business; SCIENCE!

What I find funny is that Bob is (rightfully) crying over this, yet he didn't get the launch date for Discovery right. It's probably because I live in Florida and have a sister trying to go see it, but the beginning of the movie made me double-check and make sure I didn't hallucinate the beginning of November.

Anyway, Bob, the reason why a lot of people aren't concerned over this anymore? It's old news. Old hat. The controversy has come, and people are done complaining about it, except for the people directly affected by it--employees for NASA, people who calculate their payroll (like my aunt), and students going into the aerospace sector. Everyone else has moved on because it has no short-term consequences and the long-term goals aren't readily apparent nor direly needed. The controversy is a dead horse, Bob, and you're only poking it with sticks.

I don't know if colonising the moon or Mars is such a good idea with humanity in it's current social state. I don't think MovieBob was too far off the mark when he made reference to the "USS Mountain Dew". The last thing we want is a corporate entity making planetfall first and effectively claiming ownership and then charging insane amounts for anyone who turns up subsequent. The idea of individual nations claiming them isn't much better, and will likely create new tensions here. Best would be some kind of UN-like organisation developing and promoting space travel and extra-terrestrial colonisation.

If the human race is going to go into space, we need to get over our own petty smeg and realise the only way to face the final fronter is together.

Emergent System:

Superior Mind:
I definitely find myself frustrated sometimes with the stagnation of human accomplishment.

Wow, this statement is so daft it was hard not to reply with an insult. Average human lifespan in the west has gone from around 40 to nearly 80 in less than 100 years. We are advancing at a rate far beyond anything ever known to exist, and it is vastly accelerating. The most defining trait of our culture today is that it CHANGES FASTER THAN ANY OTHER TIME IN HISTORY.

For you to make a statement like that I can only assume that you know literally nothing about history, much like how I must assume that your forum name is supposed to be ironic.

Well you held off the insult as long as you could.

If I make a statement I stand by it. Human accomplishment is... well I probably should have just said "getting boring" for clarity's sake. Your first point seems to suggest you didn't read the post in its entirety because I addressed our longer lifespans. Look, I do think that longer lifespans is great - moreso if we knew what to do with them. What's one of the western world's greatest concern right now? Our aging population. We've got a fuck-load of baby-boomers on the doorstep of superannuation and we're realising that, holy Hell, they're going to live a lot longer and we don't know if the rest of us have the resources to cater for them. Also longer lifespans have seen an increase of degenerative diseases like Alzheimers because while we're living longer our bodies are still giving out and we haven't quite got to addressing that one yet. Like I said, living to 120 would be great if 40 of those years weren't spent being tended to by a nurse. Have you ever worked in a hospital? Most resources are spent keeping alive people who should have died a long time ago. While you hold our increased lifespan up as an accomplishment I see it as a mixed blessing at best. I get excited when I hear about medical breakthroughs but that's coupled with the realisation that these things get tied up in trials and red tape and the great majority of them, never see the light of day outside a laboratory. Maybe I'm just a pessimist.

I don't quite get your point on changing culture so I'll refrain from going into too much detail because I've probably misinterpreted you. Consider this a side point in that case: I can see technological advancements, I know that many of us carry around touch-screen communication devices, I know that games have near-to-life graphics and physics and some advances with movies would blow the mind of any film maker as recently as twenty years ago. I see wars that can be fought by remote control. But really? Is that all we're good at? New gimmicky electronic devices, entertainment and more efficient ways to kill each other? It's getting a bit dull, I want something we can really get behind and space travel is a biggie. And again like I said, the potential is there, we have reached a point where we can do some bloody exciting things - but we're not. Why? Because the slight improvements to the next iPhone will make more money. God dammit humanity, you used to be cool. What happened to funding missions to climb unclimbable mountains or races to the moon?

(Every now and then there's a sliver of light. That Skylon thing looks interesting but what's the bet the project will collapse before anything comes of it. I'm such a pessimist. :/)

Obviously our opinions differ on what defines accomplishment. Really though, am I so wrong to say that things are getting a bit dull or am I just unappreciative of the fact that I live in the future?

I don't believe my opinions are daft or my name is ironic but I do agree that it can seem that way.

Damn it Bob, This is flamebait again.
Humanity hasn't shown you any kindness? Buddy thats downright offensive, I dont know how much of the world you've seen but seriously you sound out of touch.
And praising China and India for wanting to go to the moon is kind of dodgy too, As someone who lives in one and has been to the other I can tell you that both countries shouldn't even be thinking about the subject while so many of their people suffer every day.
Besides you're being way too pessimistic. Sure the bloated government space program that was established as part of a cold war pissing contest is gone, but at the same time we've still got scientists doing amazing things that will help us get to Mars one day (antimatter anyone?).
Space travel will happen when it happens (when its rewards and benefits outweigh its costs and risks), it doesn't need to be pushed by governments who's only real motivation for space exploration is showboating or (god forbid) conquest.

I disagree, Bob, not because I feel space travel is unimportant, but because I feel it is not the next level of human evolution. The next level of human evolution is in cybernetic and genetic manipulation and enhancement, and we've made some huge strides in the past 10 years (see the "Korea makes glow in the dark kittens" story of your choice). Space travel is a means to an end, and one we'll persue when we need the space. But currently, enhancing what it is and what it means to BE human is whats important.

Moreover, I feel we as a species are finally struggling through the last testosterone enthused throws of puberty. We're confronted by consumerism and wastefulness, yes, but we're having a logical debate about it now. The vast majority of opinions, reguardless of social strata, is that waste and overpopulation and tyranny and opression and genocide and all that other stuff is BAD. Compare that to the world a hundred years ago! In general humanity is SLOWLY becoming more culturally and philsophically evolved and we consider more complex issues. We're still not mature, and the vast majority of us are mouthbreathing overweight followers (I certainly am one), but enough of us AREN'T that they're starting to become audible over the drone of the self absorbed, vapid masses concerned only with feeding themselves and surviving to the next day.

We may not see these things in our lifetimes, but I think in our grandchildrens lifetimes we will see what it fundamentally means to be human change, or the concept of governments as we know them change.

Emergent System:

Superior Mind:
I definitely find myself frustrated sometimes with the stagnation of human accomplishment.

Wow, this statement is so daft it was hard not to reply with an insult. Average human lifespan in the west has gone from around 40 to nearly 80 in less than 100 years. We are advancing at a rate far beyond anything ever known to exist, and it is vastly accelerating. The most defining trait of our culture today is that it CHANGES FASTER THAN ANY OTHER TIME IN HISTORY.

For you to make a statement like that I can only assume that you know literally nothing about history, much like how I must assume that your forum name is supposed to be ironic.

& the extra 40 years brings massive issues in mordibity & the consumate cost of that morbity. In addition it allows extra people to be born who consume more resources. Individuals in America and the UK consume x10 to x100 times more resources than the rest of the world who exist in disease, poverty & squalor. They replace phones on a yearly basis burning through huge quantities of resources as a gesture of social oneupmanship rather than neccesity.

We continue to wage wars over valueless territory/religion/ideaologies. Governments are opaque and distract the populace with mindless consumerism and distractions. No effort is made for universal education and tolerance.

Where exactly are your advances in civilzation? Oh wait are you a child who measures a civilzations accomplishements in technological innovation that are intrinsically irrelevant and will be obselete in a short period? Civilization is not technology it is attitudes. Read a book.

A lot of the cancellation of the shuttle program is owed to NASA beginning to run low on Plutonium 238, which is the radioactive Macguffin needed to launch a shuttle. All of ours came from Russia, who had it in excess after the Cold War. As it is, we don't really have the facilities or resources to make it. It would take about 5-10 years until we did, assuming we started now with prime funding, which...ha. Yeah.

The question that had to be asked in THAT case is: what has the shuttle program contributed to scientific advancement lately? The answer? ...not a whole hell of a lot. So while it may be a shot to my starry-eyed nostalgia and yours, I'd much rather invest my emotional energy looking forward to unmanned exploration that exceeds our own abilities, terraforming, modular moon-lander bases, etc.

And besides, the privatization of space exploration is the best thing that could happen for it.

Be at peace! The future is bright!

LondonBeer:
Civilization is not technology it is attitudes. Read a book.

Technology defines culture. Crack open an anthropology text.

It's meant to be the EU who reach Mars first. There is a program and what not.

I think it'll probably end up being a UN effort though which starts colonisation and that won't be for years, not until there is more peace.

coakroach:
Damn it Bob, This is flamebait again.
Humanity hasn't shown you any kindness? Buddy thats downright offensive, I dont know how much of the world you've seen but seriously you sound out of touch.

Space travel will happen when it happens (when its rewards and benefits outweigh its costs and risks), it doesn't need to be pushed by governments who's only real motivation for space exploration is showboating or (god forbid) conquest.

A corporations intentions would be to make money. So if the Panacea was discovered by a corporation, its costs for space travel would be defrayed at sizeable markup. So youd die trying to afford that simple pill that would cure you because it costs a mere $2 million dollars. This is assuming the corporation didnt gouge at all (see Dichloroacetic Acid).

Humanity doesnt show kindness. Humanity accounts for at least 25% of the death toll of its own species. It pollutes, it creates conditions detrimental to its own health. Humanity is positively sadistic. Individual humans are cruel malign self serving creatures who without exception barring physiological malformation & dysfunction cannot perform an altruistic act (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327201.200-10-mysteries-of-you-altruism.html). Game theory states humanities cruelty mathematically for gods sake. Rational choices will always favour the chooser.

You clearly lack a broad world view and the experience to understand it sir.

I think there's several things that led to the falling out between America and the space program. One of the crucial root factors is that NASA seemed to be using these well-earned tax dollars to test hypothesis with no direct goal. It's only recently that the "Let's go to Mars" stuff started.

Between the gap of moon landings and the prospect of probes on Mars, we had stuff like Deep Impact (not the movie). For those who don't remember, or didn't care, Deep Impact was a project in 1995 to send part of a spacecraft hurtling into a comet. Why? For the hell of it apparently, because the main thing I was able to find regarding Deep Impact (disregarding the movie sites) was that it resulted in some sweet images of a comet exploding.

This works towards no established, distinct goal. NASA simply wants to know stuff about space. But, unfortunately for NASA, space is infinite. So, if you want to convince people to spend money on you, you need direct goals that people can envision, not a broad over-arching conceptual theology. Or, at the very least, things that directly relate to some bigger goal (however intangible). The Mars probes, which can be considered a first step in eventually going to Mars, were just too little, too late.

Especially when one crashes because they forgot to convert metric to English units of measure (true story).

...

LondonBeer:
A corporations intentions would be to make money. So if the Panacea was discovered by a corporation, its costs for space travel would be defrayed at sizeable markup. So youd die trying to afford that simple pill that would cure you because it costs a mere $2 million dollars. This is assuming the corporation didnt gouge at all (see Dichloroacetic Acid).

You're failing to understand the role of private firms - just as the video did (though the alien meeting assumption is too far in the future to make calls about, but its portrayal of NASA's using private firms in the near future is).

These firms are not running spaceflight on their own; they're contractees, providing NASA and other space agencies with everything from parts to working spacecraft while the agency in question provide pilots and funding and the like. In other words, by current structure, the companies would have no claim to money in your panacea example because they already got paid for providing the vessel that made the discovery.

Now, if we're talking some new situation wherein corporations wholly manage space missions, then your example is viable, but right now that isn't so much not viable as impossible, because space missions have to go through governments, and the private firms like SpaceX and Reaction Engines are merely providing the tools for the job.

Quite frankly I think what we should be asking about right now is why they're planning on burning up the International Space Station rather than moving it into a graveyard orbit as a piece of space-faring history.

LondonBeer:

Humanity doesnt show kindness. Humanity accounts for at least 25% of the death toll of its own species. It pollutes, it creates conditions detrimental to its own health. Humanity is positively sadistic. Individual humans are cruel malign self serving creatures who without exception barring physiological malformation & dysfunction cannot perform an altruistic act (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327201.200-10-mysteries-of-you-altruism.html). Game theory states humanities cruelty mathematically for gods sake.

Well that's a self-fulfilling philosophy. It's also bullshit, but you're entitled to your delusions.

teknoarcanist:

LondonBeer:
Civilization is not technology it is attitudes. Read a book.

Technology defines culture. Crack open an anthropology text.

Aww bless. Wikipedia lied to you. Ask someone with a PhD at the least.
Pro-tip :- Professor is pretty much a neccesity. Although readerers and mere tenure professorships like the yanks have can be regarded as 'cantdoteaches'.

Culture defines civilization my little poppet. Technology is irrelevant. Greek civilization today would be as valid a civilzation as it was pre AD. Also see Jewish history 200BC to 2000AD. Culture defines civilzation, not mobile phones.

Professor Murder:

LondonBeer:

You clearly lack a broad world view and the experience to understand it sir.

Says the gent who apparantly thinks 'malign' is an adjective.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malign

Me, Oxford English, Websters, Random house, Collins English & every other user of the word seem to thinks its an adjective.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 18 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here