Albert Tatlock Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Michela Strachan always looked good - but now we know why - she teamed up alongside Chris Packam and Pete Waterman. Even I'd look good next to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 What I mean is ... whatever happens will happen. It could not be any other way. It does not necessarily mean anything. "All of this shall pass away" etc. Suppose that we are supposed to die out If you follow Einstein, everything that "has" happened and everything that "will" happen is already in existence - we are simply moving along a succession of frames, giving us the illusion to time - there is really no present or future - everything already exists so what is "going to happen" has already "happened". So nothing we do makes any difference - we will simply do what the "future" frames contain for us. existence is essentially abstract. I do not understand what you mean by this, Pongo. Can you clarify? ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 The same could be said if some blokes just kept it in their trousers. True but that's not a policy that has much chance of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 The same could be said if some blokes just kept it in their trousers. True but that's not a policy that has much chance of success. Nature never intended it to be kept in their trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowflake Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Providing free contraception for every woman worldwide who wants it and can't afford it would have a dramatic impact. The same could be said if some blokes just kept it in their trousers. and put Jeremy Kyle out of a job. Better education in schools would be a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I was talking Worldwide, Snowflake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Did I see him on Countdown today ...... in a purple shirt? It'll be a tracksuit by the end of the week I tell ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 The problem is not that there are too many people in the universe. The problem is they are all in the same place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Nature never intended it to be kept in their trousers Nature never intended the wearing of trousers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Providing free contraception for every woman worldwide who wants it and can't afford it would have a dramatic impact. It wouldn't really, because you have to deal with the cultural/social aspects. A woman in sub-saharan Africa may want as many kids as she can produce because they will assure her old age, at about 40 or so, or she may feel that contraception actually makes her into a harlot for having non-productive sex. Then we have the other complication of the RC church preaching that unprotected sex is good and God given. We are a long way from dealing with population control in an effective and respectful way. It is not just about how women are treated, but about how humanity respects itself. Tricky one and not for flippant comment as population control is so very fundamental to our continued existence: the planet will carry on, whether we are on it is a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 There is no doubt that, for most species on Earth, and eventually for ourselves, human evolutionary success has been a disaster. Nonsense. Human evolution has proceeded faster than any other species on the planet. The herds on the savannas look the same to us as they did to Australopithecus two million years ago. In the intervening time we have changed enormously whereas the other animals have stood still because they are trapped by their environment. We have also invented art, culture, science and so forth. Our evolutionary success has not been a disaster. Often muddled, misguided, misled and worse without a doubt but a disaster - no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 We are a long way from dealing with population control in an effective and respectful way. It is not just about how women are treated, but about how humanity respects itself. Tricky one and not for flippant comment as population control is so very fundamental to our continued existence: the planet will carry on, whether we are on it is a different matter. Individuals and communities can certainly benefit from access to contraception - eg with respect to health and economics. But we need to be clear that, so called, 'family planning' is something completely different from 'population control' which is inevitably going to end up sinister. Population sizes are self regulating. Growing populations, like immigration, might threaten changes to established lifestyles but there is nothing to suggest a threat to life itself. The need for 'population control' seems to be a received wisdom amongst the sorts of people who imagine that the world could somehow be controlled top down with everyone in appx agreement and sharing similar values and ideals like well behaved citizens. The reality would be quite different and utterly ghastly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 [Human evolution has proceeded faster than any other species on the planet. Precisely - and that has been a disaster for countless other life forms which we have either driven to extinction or decimated as we have destroyed much of their habitat. If you don't think it is a disaster for them I suggest you take the trouble to investigate the matter. The herds on the savannas look the same to us as they did to Australopithecus two million years ago. How do you know this? And there are far fewer of them nowadays for us to see. In the intervening time we have changed enormously whereas the other animals have stood still because they are trapped by their environment. We have also invented art, culture, science and so forth. Genetically, we haven't changed much at all - just that we have been lucky that the changes that have occured from mutations have been extremely fortuitous for us, at least so far. We have reproduced so succesfully that there are now more of us on the Earth than it can sustainably support, and it's going to get worse as population continues to increase and more societies industrialise as they seek to reproduce the Western Developed World's standard of material living. We have simply become too succesful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 there are now more of us on the Earth than it can sustainably support This is not true. and it's going to get worse as population continues to increase and more societies industrialise as they seek to reproduce the Western Developed World's standard of material living. Trends suggest that industrialisation leads to falling birthrates. existence is essentially abstract. I do not understand what you mean by this, Pongo. Can you clarify? In this context I am postulating that there is no meaningful or definite distinction between abstract and physical existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 [Human evolution has proceeded faster than any other species on the planet. Precisely - and that has been a disaster for countless other life forms which we have either driven to extinction or decimated as we have destroyed much of their habitat. If you don't think it is a disaster for them I suggest you take the trouble to investigate the matter. Don't be ridiculous. A life-form evolves to become top predator by predating on those around it. That's how it works. That's how evolution has always worked. Objecting to how it works is like asking to review being clean-bowled by an under-arm delivery. Also your "If you don't think it is a disaster for them I suggest you take the trouble to investigate the matter" is wasted on me as I'm not a gradualist nor an eventist but rather I believe in both. The herds on the savannas look the same to us as they did to Australopithecus two million years ago. How do you know this? And there are far fewer of them nowadays for us to see. From the fossil record that produced Australopithecus of course. Where the hell else? In the intervening time we have changed enormously whereas the other animals have stood still because they are trapped by their environment. We have also invented art, culture, science and so forth. Genetically, we haven't changed much at all - just that we have been lucky that the changes that have occured from mutations have been extremely fortuitous for us, at least so far. We have reproduced so succesfully that there are now more of us on the Earth than it can sustainably support, and it's going to get worse as population continues to increase and more societies industrialise as they seek to reproduce the Western Developed World's standard of material living. We have simply become too succesfull. Of course we haven't changed much genetically. We still share a great deal of DNA with the chimps so it's hardly a surprise is it? Where you get this idea from that evolution is only driven by genetic mutation I really can't imagine. Sure genetic mutations are a driver but so is natural selection and no they are not the same thing. Simple example man started out in Africa. The sun makes Vit D in his skin and had he been white he would have made too much. So in Africa natural selection favoured dark skin. As man migrated north he needed to let in as much sunlight as possible to manufacture enough Vit D to survive. So natural selection for migrants favoured paler skins. Many years ago I read "The Ascent of Man" by Dr J Bronowski. It's a bit dry for most tastes and probably a bit dated now but if you can find a copy it's well worth a read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.