Maksutov wrote:People are responsible for war, regardless of the level of technology. Science is just an extension of human potential, tools to solve problems. If the problem is that you are competing for resources, there are tools to address that. Science is one.
Franktalk wrote:Darth J wrote:I certainly hope that Franktalk will readily concede you are just as free to believe that infections are caused by demonic possession as in the germ theory of disease. Otherwise, his failure to agree that these two ideas are equally valid will lead to suicide bombers and attacking foreign cities with science.
I have no horse in this race. What some choose to believe is their choice based on what they are exposed to and what they believe. Your attitude about what is valid, showing no respect for others, leads to problems. People believe in many things around the world. I embrace the diversity. It appears that you do not.
In time all humans on this planet will move towards a better picture of reality. But it seems we are not ready to do so at this time.
Right now we have the technology to remove starvation on the earth. But modern countries will not do it. Right now we have many forms of technology that would benefit the world. But we refuse to share these devices with our fellow humans. We instead are guided by profit. What good is science if the devices made by science are not shared. If you lived in a poor country just how would you view America?
Franktalk wrote:Darth J wrote:It's as if you literally don't know what science is.
"use your science to fly jets over their cities and bomb them"
Yes, American foreign policy, because science.
Are you saying that science is not responsible for jets? I think you don't think through what you post. Yes, American foreign policy is built on options provided by science. Duh.
Franktalk wrote:Darth J wrote:I certainly hope that Franktalk will readily concede you are just as free to believe that infections are caused by demonic possession as in the germ theory of disease. Otherwise, his failure to agree that these two ideas are equally valid will lead to suicide bombers and attacking foreign cities with science.
I have no horse in this race. What some choose to believe is their choice based on what they are exposed to and what they believe.
Your attitude about what is valid, showing no respect for others, leads to problems. People believe in many things around the world. I embrace the diversity. It appears that you do not.
Franktalk wrote:You say your views on things are correct.
Franktalk wrote:You say that others who disagree with you are babyish.
[Yes, legally free but] please don't have the chutzpah to ask that the same amount of respect be given to any view you choose to adopt simply because it feels good, or fits in with the prejudices of whatever religion your parents happened to teach you, in comparison with the evolutionary science carefully and painfully worked out over a century and a half of observation, data gathering, comparison analysis, criticism and consensus building - and then criticism again and again.
The science is a huge and complex intellectual symphony - the other kind of stuff is babyish by comparison.
Franktalk wrote:When you make your views known to others who feel very strongly about their beliefs then conflict occurs. Others may wish to kill you because they see your attitude as an attack on their belief system. Others may be so attached to their beliefs that they are willing to strap bombs on themselves and blow up parts of your culture. Then in revenge you may use your science to fly jets over their cities and bomb them. This makes them mad so they send over more devoted people to take the infidels lives. The cycle repeats itself and escalates until one side is wiped out. Your intolerance and their intolerance together makes this world a living hell. I hope you can see this, but I expect the usual "I am right and they are wrong".
Franktalk wrote:Are you saying that science is not responsible for jets? I think you don't think through what you post. Yes, American foreign policy is built on options provided by science. Duh.
Skeletal remains of a group of foragers massacred around 10,000 years ago on the shores of a lagoon is unique evidence of a violent encounter between clashing groups of ancient hunter-gatherers, and suggests the “presence of warfare” in late Stone Age foraging societies.
The fossilised bones of a group of prehistoric hunter-gatherers who were massacred around 10,000 years ago have been unearthed 30km west of Lake Turkana, Kenya, at a place called Nataruk.
Researchers from Cambridge University’s Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies (LCHES) found the partial remains of 27 individuals, including at least eight women and six children.
Twelve skeletons were in a relatively complete state, and ten of these showed clear signs of a violent death: including extreme blunt-force trauma to crania and cheekbones, broken hands, knees and ribs, arrow lesions to the neck, and stone projectile tips lodged in the skull and thorax of two men.
Several of the skeletons were found face down; most had severe cranial fractures. Among the in situ skeletons, at least five showed “sharp-force trauma”, some suggestive of arrow wounds. Four were discovered in a position indicating their hands had probably been bound, including a woman in the last stages of pregnancy. Foetal bones were uncovered.
The bodies were not buried. Some had fallen into a lagoon that has long since dried; the bones preserved in sediment.
The findings suggest these hunter-gatherers, perhaps members of an extended family, were attacked and killed by a rival group of prehistoric foragers. Researchers believe it is the earliest scientifically-dated historical evidence of human conflict – an ancient precursor to what we call warfare.
The origins of warfare are controversial: whether the capacity for organised violence occurs deep in the evolutionary history of our species, or is a symptom of the idea of ownership that came with the settling of land and agriculture.
The Nataruk massacre is the earliest record of inter-group violence among prehistoric hunter-gatherers who were largely nomadic. The only comparable evidence, discovered in Sudan in the 1960s, is undated, although often quoted as of similar age. It consists of cemetery burials, suggesting a settled lifestyle.
“The deaths at Nataruk are testimony to the antiquity of inter-group violence and war,” said Dr Marta Mirazón Lahr, from Cambridge’s LCHES, who directs the ERC-funded IN-AFRICA Project and led the Nataruk study, published today in the journal Nature.
“These human remains record the intentional killing of a small band of foragers with no deliberate burial, and provide unique evidence that warfare was part of the repertoire of inter-group relations among some prehistoric hunter-gatherers,” she said.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Franktalk wrote:Are you saying that science is not responsible for jets? I think you don't think through what you post. Yes, American foreign policy is built on options provided by science. Duh.
Can someone science back in time and science over to the Barbary Coast and explain to them that the Americans that landed in science boats and invaded Tripoli to science the Barbary pirates? Because it was science that got us there. Right?
- Doc
Chap wrote:C'mon now. I have never had such an experience in my life as a result of a disagreement, and I bet you haven't either, and that neither of us ever will. Neither of us is remotely as exciting or important as that very overblown paragraph suggests. That kind of writing is the moral equivalent of masturbation - exciting, even satisfying, but not to be mistaken for the real thing.
DrW wrote:Hey, Doc.
Looks as though you have chosen an example from the history of the USMC.
Were you once among us?