Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But we're growing more peaceful than our ancestors in many parts of the world (yes, despite the Islamic glitch).
Picking up on your digression:
I think it was us, the "more peaceful" descendants of OUR ancestors, who spent a trillion dollars bombing THEM until, according to the more peaceful Rumsfeld, there were no longer any useful targets. In retaliation for seven of the one-billion "glitch" Muslims flying a plane into a building, without the knowledge or consent of any national authorities or general public in any Islamic-glitch nation..
I can't recall a single Islamic nation's military firing a single shot into a Christian country since the Ottoman Empire.
Which calls into question whether "we" are any more peaceful than we ever were. We only seem more peaceful because our capacity to deliver firepower has reached unimagined proportions, and the potential consequences are weighed with more circumspection. In VIetnam, we could kill more people with one flame-thrower,than in WWI with ten thousand rounds of ammunition, but simply turning down the volume doesn't make us more peaceful.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
OK, good points, we've done some terrible things, I can't downplay that, though we haven't used nukes even though capable of it - but I was talking about radical versions of Islam rather than particular Muslims or Muslim-majority nations. Ordinary Islam as practiced in recent history was pretty much like Christianity - nobody paying much attention to the teachings other than the few formulaic practices that would supposedly be needed to get into heaven. Pray five times a day, attend mass and confess sins, or put your faith in Jesus to wash out all your sins. But very recently, Muslims have gone to the radical versions, which are actually more faithful to the early teachings and violent genocidal wars (for example, conquest of India). So more and more of them are picking up on the fundie version.
The head of the Iranian state is such, a fundamentalist Muslim who has often threatened to destroy Israel and dominate the Middle East. He's about to get nukes, perhaps in a while rolling off assembly lines to get many, and is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile to put them on. At that time, you will understand why so many of us are concerned about radical Islam, even to the point of taking extreme measures.
Taking this back to the thread, this rise in religious fundamentalism might turn out to be a bottleneck that ruins this civilization, if it turns into even moderate-sized nuclear war. Perhaps only a very few extraterrestrial societies could peacefully pass through a similar destructive bottleneck, and progress to the point of FTL travel! But all of them would realize that a people in the infancy of civilization would tend to be violent ....... after all we've only been at it for a few thousand years, and much less time in terms of advanced technologies.
Why is it thought that anything Tyson says has any relevance? Did nobody ever raise this question before he did?
Why does this man get so much exposure? He is not intelligent,he is not articulate, he is not entertaining. Is it because he is . . . Never mind.
There's no accounting for taste.
Most people do find him highly intelligent, articulate and entertaining. (Including other astrophysicists and a president or two.) And you can say the word, no need for ellipses. He himself jokes about being a black man in physics, and what it was like to be misunderestimated because he was a 10-yo black kid with a 'fro who was passionate about astronomy.
How can evidence, especially a "tremendous amount" also be anecdotal? It's either evidence or it's not. What real, beyond a shadow of a doubt, evidence do we humans have that proves the existence of aliens? And why do we automatically assume said aliens are going to be so much more advanced than we are?
I'm not trying to turn this into a religion vs science argument at all - because I know it's against the forum rules. I just don't understand how some scientific minds will argue against the existence of a deity, yet be completely open-minded to the existence of aliens - lifeforms that they have not seen with their own eyes nor have any hard evidence? I understand the fascination with the concept of aliens. In scientific terms, to discover a new intelligent species from some other planet - regardless the nature of said species, is a cool thought. Discovering that there is a deity that is controlling everything is probably not as cool of thought, because that means none of us have control over life and the events that happen on our planet. I just wonder, sometimes, do some scientists truly think in only scientific terms, or do they allow some aspect of their belief system to effect their work?
Two points -
1) The search for extra-terrestrial life is by no means focussed on finding aliens more advanced than we are. Although the general public would most likely be underwhelmed by the discovery of, say, bacteria-like organisms on Titan (or even some self-replicating proteins in a Titanic puddle), I assure you that every biologist on the face of this planet would have wet underwear on hearing about it.
2) Given that we know for sure that one planet in the universe manifests life, and the numbers of planets that could exist, and the billions of years the universe has been, and will be, around - well, I think it's a trivial statistical exercise to show that extraterrestrial life is more probable than a humanoid writ large being in control of the universe. Of course, if you are willing to admit that the pentateuch/bible/koran has it wrong about the humanoid nature of god, the odds for a universal deity probably do go up slightly.
Which calls into question whether "we" are any more peaceful than we ever were. We only seem more peaceful because our capacity to deliver firepower has reached unimagined proportions, and the potential consequences are weighed with more circumspection. In VIetnam, we could kill more people with one flame-thrower,than in WWI with ten thousand rounds of ammunition, but simply turning down the volume doesn't make us more peaceful.
Steven Pinker published a book in 2012, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, on this very subject. Like his other books, it is exhaustive, full of numbers and careful analysis of those numbers. He convinced me.
He himself jokes about being a black man in physics,
.
He can, but I can't. He can call himself the N-word and everyone laughs. I get ellipses.
The TV networks sent somebody out to find a black physicist, to avoid the highly predictable accusations that they only air white physicists. They found Tyson. Problem solved. Even Tyson would be cognizant of the irony in that, but I have to use ellipses.
If advanced intelligent beings are out there i cant think of much that would entice them to send anything more than a few scientific drones to Earth to satiate their scientific curiosity.
He can, but I can't. He can call himself the N-word and everyone laughs. I get ellipses.
He doesn't call himself the N-word. He calls himself black. And you can say it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
The TV networks sent somebody out to find a black physicist, to avoid the highly predictable accusations that they only air white physicists. They found Tyson. Problem solved. Even Tyson would be cognizant of the irony in that, but I have to use ellipses.
Did they? Or did they just look for a prestigious astrophysicist who likes to ham it up a bit, which makes for better TV?
I've read Tyson's books and watched a lot of his videos. Your implication that the melanin content of his skin, rather than the contents of his brain, is the reason he is asked for his opinions is ridiculous. But if you have a real critique of his research credentials, please do share it. And also share with us your own academic credentials in astrophysics please. So we can determine whether the TV networks should be asking for your opinion, alongside of, or instead of, Tyson's.
Just curious - do you think the only reason that Ben Carson is a presidential contender is because of the melanin content of his skin? Do you think the only reason Colin Powell led the military is because of the melanin content of his skin? I mean, come off it!
Why is it thought that anything Tyson says has any relevance? Did nobody ever raise this question before he did?
Why does this man get so much exposure? He is not intelligent,he is not articulate, he is not entertaining. Is it because he is . . . Never mind.
I've read a book of his essays. He is intelligent, articulate and entertaining. His approach to cosmology makes it more comprehensible to the layman.
What have you read or heard from his that was unintelligent or inarticulate? Can you give us a link or example?
I cannot for the life of me understand what his skin color could have to do with anything we are discussing here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
