Pondering the fate of humans
8 July 2006 by Stardust
Famed British astrophysicist and best-selling author has turned to Yahoo Answers, a new feature in which anyone can pose a question for fellow Internet users to try to answer. By Friday afternoon, nearly 17,000 Yahoo Inc. users had responded. (Officials at the University of Cambridge, where Hawking is a mathematics professor, confirmed that Hawking wrote the message but said he would have no further comment.)
Hawking’s question was: “In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?”
Some of the answers were short — “get rid of nuclear weapons” — and others vague — “Somehow we will.” Many were doubtful: “I don’t think it is possible unless we expand into space,” one user wrote.
A number of people suggested thinking differently, ending bickering or fostering cooperation.
In a June 13 speech in Hong Kong, Hawking said the survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there’s an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy Earth.
He said that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.
Over the next week, Yahoo employees are expected to work with Hawking to sift through the answers and select one or several to highlight as best responses.
I have thought long and hard about what my answer would be, and I say that we MUST abandon religion. I know that is a rather radical statement, but religious beliefs have brought us some of the most terrifying and bloody events in the history of civilization and serves as a “ball and chain” to the ancient past and backward thinking. Sam Harris writes, “Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity—a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible.” Since many of those who hold the power believe their ancient superstitious texts to be the “true” word of their gods, we may end up screwed because in reality there are no gods or supernatural beings to save us from ourselves. Harris states that “We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation, or any of the other fantastical notions that have lurked in the minds of the faithful for millennia—because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.”
Do you think the human race can sustain another 100 years?
8 July 2006, on 10:56 pm
You are right about abolishing religion. The whole reason for all the violence in the Middle East is because each of the religions founded in that area believe that they need to control that area in order to bring about total dominion.
Religion has been nothing but an obstacle to social and moral progress, but unfortunately abolishing religion will take time, and will also play into the martyr complex of the xian right.
Maybe a better solution would be to make certain that a wall of seperation exists between religion and government in all nations instead of outright abolishing religion, which in my mind is completely impossible. Eliminate one god and another will rise to take it’s place.
8 July 2006, on 11:15 pm
My answer: No.
And I’m disappointed that Hawking things we have any right to colonize space to get away from the planet we’ve destroyed.
8 July 2006, on 11:28 pm
Thanks Stardust, for posting this.
My atheist companion was online this afternoon and informed me about Hawking’s Yahoo question.
I had been thinking to myself about that same sort of question; sometimes commenting to people about what kind of world the human race is going to confront, even in twenty to fifty years; … with global warming and other possible disasters. I often feel somewhat sorry for many of the younger people [at least the thinking ones!] who must be pondering similar ideas.
I have to agree, totally, with Sam Harris’ assestment. It’s been my opinion, for a long time [as I assume, for many here on this site] that if we didn’t have the various Religions, and the childhood brainwashing which comes with all those myriad beliefs; we would at least stand a CHANCE of having a more rational, and perhaps, more peaceful world.
As Joseph Campbell remarked, way back in the 1980s, in some of his lectures: we need new ‘updated Software’ [new paradigms?] of the mind, to deal with the more recent, Scientific and Rational view of the world [and the Cosmos!]; as opposed to the ancient’s world view- -based on irrational, unscientific, ‘magical’, …and supersticious belief.
Will mankind choose properly?…I have some grave doubts!
For one thing, …we certainly need much smarter, …less brainwashed …leaders than the current ‘crop’!
Yada, yada!
9 July 2006, on 12:00 am
I’m not for abolishing religion in any fascist sense. If you meant “grow out of it,” I totally agree. But you can’t abolish belief systems. Do I think we will ever grow out of it? Not unless we actually evolve our brains to a point where we are a different species altogether. Right now, our still fairly primitive minds and emotions cannot handle the reality of our own mortality. Animals don’t have or need religion, because they don’t have the existential dilemmas that we do. I think even animals that recognize their dead and seem to mourn — chimps, elephants, dolphins — don’t spend all their time pondering how they will die. It doesn’t seem part of their nature. It’s everything, it seems, to humans. Sex and death. We’re obsessed with them. Hence the eternal popularity of the vampire tale. It’s got both in spades.
Will we survive another 100 years? Sure, probably. Even a cataclysmic event would have a hard time snuffing out 6 billion of us cocka-roaches. We’re survivors. What state we will be in, I haven’t a clue. How we will make it depends on how much we learn that we are all pretty much the same. Nationalism, racism, religious intolerance (not so much religion, but the complete intolerance of the “other” that often comes with it), all need to be overcome.
Call me a bit idealistic, but I see the Internet as one of the things that could possibly help save us. It has already changed the way many of us view the rest of humanity, and put us in touch in ways unthinkable just 15 years ago. Let’s keep it thriving with hope and, above all, knowledge.
9 July 2006, on 12:24 am
If god is a gene, say, a physical difference between them and us, perhaps their Rapture will be some sort of superbug that only fells “god-genies” and happens to fell all of them quickly, painlessly, and automatically renders their flesh into dust to prevent the health hazard of mass putrefaction from biting us in the ass.
There will be millions of houses, dusty-bedded houses with refrigerators for the raiding and we’ll be surprised and sad that some of the ones we thought would surely still be here succumbed while others we’d be better off without still walk among us- incoherent, shuffling wretches but among us. That’s what’s left of Bill O’Reilly over there. Don’t let him touch you with that awful loofah.
Then, we start to wonder who will now fill Jerry Springer’s stage, who now will drive our Nascars? And who, exactly, is running the country now that half of Congress is gone and the other half- along with George and Dick, are foraging for tin cans along the Anacostia? Bauxite, that tin (Pat Robertson has scarred his Adam’s Apple with an Irish flute and now speaks with a B-flat whistle).
Monsignor Wheresthebeef, of the Los Angeles Godgers, from his deathbed, has, apparently, started the countdown to the simultaneous splitting of all the atoms in our nuclear arsenal only moments after being named “President” as the 21,393rd person down the list from President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, etc. and the first one alive to take the position.
Tick~Tock~Tick~To…
9 July 2006, on 12:27 am
I’m not for abolishing religion in any fascist sense. If you meant “grow out of it,” I totally agree.
Sean – Yes, that is what I mean…gradually. I didn’t mean to sound like a fascist.
Maybe a better solution would be to make certain that a wall of seperation exists between religion and government in all nations instead of outright abolishing religion, which in my mind is completely impossible. Eliminate one god and another will rise to take it’s place.
Matt – This is exactly what my husband said. It’s what has been happening throughout history. Your solution to make certain that a wall of separation between religion and government is an ideal to strive for. Even here in the U.S.A. it’s an ongoing battle to keep the wall in place. (Some things keep managing to get over the wall despite what our Constitution says.)
if we didn’t have the various Religions, and the childhood brainwashing which comes with all those myriad beliefs; we would at least stand a CHANCE of having a more rational, and perhaps, more peaceful world.
ChuckA – We can only dream!
And I’m disappointed that Hawking things we have any right to colonize space to get away from the planet we’ve destroyed.
Catherine – I am very into astronomy and try to keep up with the latest space programs, etc and am fascinated by the universe. IMO if humans could adapt to living in space colonies (which I doubt they can for very long), as long as we are not displacing or overtaking some other life forms, we should try to preserve humankind if we can.
9 July 2006, on 1:00 am
Sorry, the channel in my brain was changed and I was halfway to Hemingford Home” before I even noticed.
How will religion go away? And will it do so peacefully or kicking and screaming as I suspect? The fundie tantrum of late, though directed scattershot from Hollywood Liberals to the Homosexual Agenda to the “War Against Christians”, is in actuality aimed against the advance of time and of knowledge, the secularizing fist of modernity, the Xian War Against an Inevitable Reality.
It’s not as if some impeccably credentialed authority is going to step up on the national dais and release that information;
“We’re sorry, folks, but, apparently, there is no god. Prepare to rebuild your lives from the ground up without the psychological helium we once knew as god, okay? Good luck.”
At a time when we, as a nation, are constantly working at the issue of disaster response, perhaps we ought to wonder how the chronically underfunded and overstigmatized mental health care system will fare under the direct assault of the suddenly godless godgers? I mean, we’re talking complete psychotic breaks- and, yet, only a degree or two from their normal mental temperature, so not necessarily exaggerating.
Will it be slow, like generation into generation, little by little? It’s more fun to picture it as a country full of persistently vegetative patients suddenly awakened after who knows how many years under the spell of their own imagination. They might need to be herded.
9 July 2006, on 1:28 am
Raindogzilla Says:
Monsignor Wheresthebeef, of the Los Angeles Godgers, from his deathbed, has, apparently, started the countdown to the simultaneous splitting of all the atoms in our nuclear arsenal only moments after being named “President” as the 21,393rd person down the list from President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, etc. and the first one alive to take the position.
Dude. You’re killin’ me. How does your brain slow down at night in time for bed? Heavy medication? Or are you a deadly android from the future?
Long live MechaRaindogZilla.
Stardust:
You scared the piss out of me with this: the asteroid that passed by Earth at 10 miles…
I was, like, 10 fucking miles from Earth??? How did I not hear about this? Until I saw the next line, which said “a second.”
It’s like the old Benny Hill jokes (which were already old jokes when he did them):
What’s this thing called, love?
No! No! The line is: “What’s this thing called ‘love?!’”
Or my old fave in the word-stress joke category: “What’s that up there on the road? A head? I mean… What’s that up there on the road ahead?”
9 July 2006, on 1:58 am
H-h-h-hello?! Abolishing religion is the single greatest step we can take towards saving humanity?! You’re saying that thousands of years of petty (albeit bloody) infighting over a bunch of crazy ideologies are just now coming to a head in such a manner that will make the planet unsuitable for human life?
Consider the question Hawking is posing here (because it contains his theory on what he thinks is destroying humanity on a suddenly accelerated timetable of 100 years or less). His qualifiers build on each other:
1. Politically (Political decisions determine our social structure and lifestyle)
2. Socially (Our social structure and lifestyle determines our impact on the environment)
3. Environmentally (Our impact on the environment has become so potent that it is now starting to determine Earth’s suitability as a hospitable planet for humans)
Bush’s environmental (i.e. the area where he has the greatest ability to ensure sustainability of the human race) screw-ups have much more to do with his back-room buddies in the oil industry than his professed brand of Christianity.
Take away religion and everyone will just start getting along? No. They’ll always find something to fight about because there will always be greedy evil power-hungry madmen (and women) who will instigate war.
Make the abolishment of religion your number one goal in the quest to save humanity from itself and you’ll go down in history as undisputed the winner of the misplaced priorities/wasted opportunities contest.
9 July 2006, on 2:40 am
What we need, if we are to erode religion’s grip on many people, is something that will make people feel personally conflicted. I don’t know what this something might be, but perhaps there’s something that, when people know it, will clash with their religious beliefs to such an extent that in the back of their minds they’ll always be thinking “shit, what if I’m wrong?” I want something that will be there when people tell others of God’s existence, love, etc. I’m thinking of something that will make the scientifically-illiterate masses feel conflicted.
Any ideas? In particualr, I ask those who were once religious to come forward with ideas. What is it that made you lose your faith, and how might this be presented to the religious?
9 July 2006, on 3:49 am
Mormon Cricket Says:
H-h-h-hello?!
Stardust: Maybe you should change the word “abolishment” to “abandoment.”
9 July 2006, on 3:55 am
I was going to reply to this post by Stardust, but Sean beat me to it and hit the two major points I was going to make, right down to “cocka-roaches”. Exactly what I was thinking. Yes, the species will survive, short of a K/T type event, and possibly even then. The planet, so far as we know, has never known a more intelligent species than humans. As for civilization 100 years from now, I’m doubtful, but hopeful.
Undoubtedly the greatest obstacle to rationally dealing with the issues of sustaining a planet with 6 billion of us is religion. When most people don’t give a shit what comes several generations after them, or even after their own death, what can be done? At least we’re documenting far more information than in all of history in more time-durable forms than ever before.
9 July 2006, on 7:31 am
Cricket, you’re right that, for example, Bush’s enviro policies are shaped by backroom oil cronies. However, in addition to simple greed, might their attitudes, in turn, be shaped by that religious loathing or indifference towards the earth, our home? You know, the abhorrence of “worldly” matters, the focus on eternal reward?
This is cold, I realize, but what about philanthropy- in the third world, specifically? With every dollar we give, with every immunization we administer, with every AIDS cocktail we provide, with every bit of infrastructure we build or dramatically improve, we increase the burden on the overtaxed planet. Perhaps it’s necessary for some people to die off out of some, admittedly rigged, natural selection. Is it still “natural” selection when some have the ability to rig it? Or, is that ability itself an evolved mutation and merely part of the process?
9 July 2006, on 8:58 am
Stardust: Maybe you should change the word “abolishment” to “abandoment.”
Sean – done. As I stated in an early comment I didn’t mean to sound like a fascist…abandon IS a better word since it would have to be the believers who willingly open their eyes to reason and choose to let go of their superstitious beliefs (or at least keep them out of government)
9 July 2006, on 9:10 am
You’re saying that thousands of years of petty (albeit bloody) infighting over a bunch of crazy ideologies are just now coming to a head in such a manner that will make the planet unsuitable for human life?
Mormon Cricket — I apologize for using the world “abolish” when what I meant was abandon…thanks to Sean for pointing this out.
This is not the single thing we need to do, but it’s a huge place to start. Human beings are still using religion as an excuse to commit the worst atrocities…look at what is going on in Africa and places all over the planet right now. Religious beliefs have brought us some of the most terrifying and bloody events in the history of civilization and still continue today all over the world. Self-flagellation (xians do it too in remote parts of Europe), some Filippinos xians crucify themselves, and look at the barbaric tortures and executions carried out because some ancient texts are believed to be the word of a god.
I just saw the most horrible video footage yesterday of the stoning of a man and a woman who were found guilty of adultery. They were both wrapped in gauze like mummies, half their bodies buried up to their waists in a standing position in deep holes and then the crowd threw stones at them until they were mutilated and dead. I cried while watching it. Atheists in power who commit atrocities make themselves a kind of god to their people and their philosophies become the religion forced on people and that is just as bad.
Take away religion and everyone will just start getting along? No. They’ll always find something to fight about because there will always be greedy evil power-hungry madmen (and women) who will instigate war.
This is true, but it won’t be beause they believe they are doing the right thing that some “sky daddy” says to them in some aural hallucinations.
9 July 2006, on 9:22 am
However, in addition to simple greed, might their attitudes, in turn, be shaped by that religious loathing or indifference towards the earth, our home? You know, the abhorrence of “worldly” matters, the focus on eternal reward?
RDZ – This is exactly my reason for saying that first we must “abandon” religion. Most believers are more concerned and obsessed with the afterlife and just write it off that GAWD says the earth is going to end and his “saved children” are going to live somewhere over the rainbow anyway. We can’t get religious folks to take Al Gore seriously (and to be fair, many non religious people ingore the problem because they just don’t care about the future since they won’t be here anyway.)
How do you get a planet full of people to care about preserving humanity when most of humanity feel that being dead is eventually more important than living?
9 July 2006, on 10:46 am
Religion is the greatest threat to the world — yet the most dangerous ideology of the 20th century was atheistic in nature?
9 July 2006, on 11:18 am
Stardust, I’m an astronomy fanatic, too; in fact, it was my response to the Voyager images of the outer planets that awakened my interest in science, which has become a passion. I just feel that we have no business going elsewhere (apart from flybys) until we’ve figured out how to live here. But that doesn’t mean I think humans won’t do this. Bush is talking about going to Mars. Dear Darwin, don’t let him anywhere near the control room!!!!!!
9 July 2006, on 11:50 am
(not our) bob Says:
Religion is the greatest threat to the world — yet the most dangerous ideology of the 20th century was atheistic in nature?
To which I say “bullshit”:
http://tinyurl.com/7shkq
http://tinyurl.com/o9hta
9 July 2006, on 11:59 am
Not to mention that Communism was/is a religion in and of itself. Substitute the State for the bearded fuck in the sky and there’s very little that separates it from the fundamentalism of today. Hell, I lump Stalin and Mao in with the Crusaders, the Torquemadas, the Pius XIIs, the Bishop Landas, the Hitlers, and anybody else motivated by religion.
Plus, world history extends back much further than the 20th century.
9 July 2006, on 12:02 pm
Raindogzilla Says:
Plus, world history extends back much further than the 20th century.
Indeed it does.
9 July 2006, on 12:30 pm
Hey I think your spamware is acting up again. Either that, or the NSA didn’t like what I had to say.
In a nutshell, I think humanity won’t survive 100 year unless we atheists organize a real world community.
We are humanity’s last hope.
Don’t worry about colonizing space, either. After the fundies and Islamofacists carry out their apocalyptic “dream”, there’s going to be plenty of land (unless they manage to foul the air).
But we must start now, before these idiots decide to round us up and “re-educate” us all.
9 July 2006, on 12:57 pm
You can’t abolish religion.
But you can give people the tools required to have a clearer sharper mind.
9 July 2006, on 1:36 pm
Of course we must go into space. There may be aliens out there who do not yet realise we once nailed a man to a tree.
More seriously, I think an important step toward humanities survival is to convince people not to wish for death.
People who take the extreme environmental position of not wanting to desecrate other worlds (Catherine apparently is not one of those, she just made me think of them) may as well advocate mass suicide. We cannot live without destroying something and for now and probably well into our future part of what we destroy must be alive.
I do think it amazing that a chemical process beginning on this planet will someday spread out to reshape other worlds. Life is the electromagnetic force’s response to gravity’s claim to rule the universe.
9 July 2006, on 1:40 pm
Sean:
To which I say “bullshit”:
[Richard Dawkins interview]
I’m confused as to how that addresses what I said. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that atheism is the cause of communist atrocities.
Not to mention that Communism was/is a religion in and of itself. Substitute the State for the bearded fuck in the sky and there’s very little that separates it from the fundamentalism of today. Hell, I lump Stalin and Mao in with the Crusaders, the Torquemadas, the Pius XIIs, the Bishop Landas, the Hitlers, and anybody else motivated by religion.
Well, no. There were certain aspects of Stalin and Mao’s regimes that seem religous, but that doesn’t make communism a religion.
9 July 2006, on 2:54 pm
Do you have the link to the original posted question on Yahoo Answers?
9 July 2006, on 3:33 pm
This is exactly my reason for saying that first we must “abandon” religion. Most believers are more concerned and obsessed with the afterlife and just write it off that GAWD says the earth is going to end and his “saved children” are going to live somewhere over the rainbow anyway.
That’s a pretty broad brush you are painting with there..The two problems I have with your argument are
1. There are many religions (including mine) and people (including me) who believe in a “gawd” and are very passionate about caring for the land and for respecting the sanctity of life, human or otherwise.
2. Sure there are a huge number of kooks who think as you have accused. This means I ought to abandon my religion? Someone else’s irresponsibility should not have such a drastic influence on my life.
9 July 2006, on 3:53 pm
2 Catherine
If you are so certain that we don’t have the right to survive, then please follow your contention to its logical conclusion and kill yourself.
9 July 2006, on 4:05 pm
17 not our bob
It was a religion with the State as deity.
9 July 2006, on 5:11 pm
1. There are many religions (including mine) and people (including me) who believe in a “gawd” and are very passionate about caring for the land and for respecting the sanctity of life, human or otherwise.
Mormon Cricket – But ultimately, you believe you are going to Sugarcandy Mountain in the sky when you die, so isn’t it true that you believe you have less to lose than those you believe are going to “hell”? On one hand religious folks talk about respecting the sanctity of life here on earth…but on the other hand believe that this fantasy world is going to be “PARADISE.” For atheists, this planet Earth is all we have, unless we find another similar planet out there somewhere and create a means of reaching that planet.
9 July 2006, on 6:03 pm
Abolish religion?
There either is or is not a God.
If there is not, then man invented the idea of a God.
Why did man invent the idea?
To instill order and some type of accountability for man.
Otherwise, chaos ensues.
9 July 2006, on 6:07 pm
Lisa W. Says:
Do you have the link to the original posted question on Yahoo Answers?
Here is Hawking’s question.
9 July 2006, on 6:30 pm
Well, no. There were certain aspects of Stalin and Mao’s regimes that seem religous, but that doesn’t make communism a religion.
What aspects of religion were missing from state-run communism besides belief in an afterlife? Fealty to the one truth, fealty to the one leader, dogma, rituals, punishment for thinking for yourself. Sounds like a religion to me.
The point is that you cannot make a sound argument that the reason why Stalin did the things that he did was because he was an atheist.
9 July 2006, on 6:35 pm
Jtex2110 Says:
Abolish religion?
There either is or is not a God.
If there is not, then man invented the idea of a God.
Why did man invent the idea?
To instill order and some type of accountability for man.
Otherwise, chaos ensues.
Really? There’s no religion in my household and I have yet to see this chaos you speak of.
This is a tired old argument. If the only reason you aren’t out raping and pillaging is because of religion, then you are a disturbed individual. I don’t need religion to have a clear moral compass. And humans have evolved to work together in groups to the benefit of the individual and the group. We would do this whether religion was there or not. And we would do it in far healthier ways if it wasn’t for the exclusiveness and hatred of the the “other” that religion has repeatedly instilled in people throughout history. It is, in fact, the counter-uniter, the un-cooperator, the force that brings chaos, not order. Take a look at Gaza right now and tell me that religion brings order.
9 July 2006, on 6:45 pm
The point is that you cannot make a sound argument that the reason why Stalin did the things that he did was because he was an atheist.
Exactly! But we CAN make a sound argument that religion was the reason for the Crusades, Inquisition, and Witch trials, for instance.
Why did man invent the idea?
To instill order and some type of accountability for man.
Otherwise, chaos ensues.
I have a few reasons why humans invented religion: because they are afraid to die, because it is a way for the powerful to control and oppress people, and it is a way to justify bigotry and prejudice. I can’t see how it makes the world less chaotic. Just look at history…wherever there is religion, there is NO PEACE.
9 July 2006, on 6:49 pm
Sean, Jtex is right in the sense that, if everybody woke up tomorrow with the knowledge that there was no god and that their religion meant diddly squat, chaos on a societal level probably would ensue, initially. That’s why it would be a good idea to have somewhere to hole up- armed to the teeth, should that ever happen.
I think that most would-be Xian soldiers would wilt without a bearded fuck in the sky to back their play.
I just have this sinking feeling that, on that first godfree morning, the godgeriest of the bunch would fight the loss to their dying breath calling reality a conspiracy- a Jewish one probably. They’d be like “Our hearts tell us that we cannot believe what our minds say in return. The Jewish infidels have used the blood of our children to learn mind control and this is what we hear in our heads and only in our hearts can gawd still be alive. Kill the intellectuals!”
9 July 2006, on 6:52 pm
Stardust says:
wherever there is religion, there is NO PEACE.
On several occasions I have seen young Muslim kids here in the city wearing t-shirts that say:
“Know Islam, know peace.
No Islam, no peace.”
Why, what a beautiful sentiment, don’t you think?
9 July 2006, on 7:08 pm
Mormon Cricket, of course there are religious out there who care for the planet, who believe in evolution, in global warming, and are lobbying to get something done about it. You’re absolutely right that my brush was too broad and for that I apologize- some of my own family members espouse that same temperate, tolerant religion that you do.
I, however, see religion as, at best, a quirky personality trait and, at worst, a complete break with reality. I worry that the former can become the latter in the blink of an eye so I’m a little distrustful of even the moderate among you. Factor into that, my belief that, ultimately, a god or religion is no longer necessary to order our structured society and you get a tendency to broadbrush the religious thing.
I am however, in favor of lining up beside the moderate and liberal religious out there to install a more egalitarian and humane government here in 2006.
What it boils down to, if you’re a monotheist, is that on the deepest of levels you have to believe that I’m damned. And, on that same level, I believe you’re insane. Mine at least doesn’t involve eternal torment.
9 July 2006, on 9:03 pm
Actually, that’s the bastardization of a fairly common anti-jihad slogan:
“Know Islam, no peace.
No Islam, know peace.”
9 July 2006, on 11:54 pm
Wasn’t the Great Leap Forward a secular movement, and didn’t it kill more people than all the “religious wars” combined?
10 July 2006, on 1:57 am
I’ve followed all the discussion here on this topic.
Something of an old idea comes to mind regarding the main theme here:
That is…”Pondering the Fate of Humans”.
I’m admitting right ‘up front’ that the substance of the following ‘old idea’ is based, purely, on speculation.
I’ve spoken about these ‘points’ with a few non-threatening people, [VERY few!] on occasion; I guess, more in a Sci-Fi fashion. See what you think? And please put your weapons down? …”Yeesh!” [Kidding!]
1) I consider Earth, in general, to be Predatory planet; with man having evolved to being the top [most dangerous] predator. In other words, no other species, save some microbes, perhaps, posit the gravest threat to the continuance of life on the planet. Even an asteroid colliding with the planet, which has happened more than once, according to science, would NOT wipe out all life permanently.
[Now,...'bear' with me?]
2) Earthlings have always had a deep fascination with the planet Mars; curiously, it was referred to, by the Greeks and/or Romans, as the planet of War! Was it just because the ancients perceived it as a Reddish Orb, and associated it with blood, etc.; …Or was there some faint ‘remnant’ of collective memory involved?
3) With the advent of our ability to probe Mars [I'm sticking with Mars only, here! no gaseous planet need apply!] with satellites, and our cute little robotic emissaries on the surface; we’ve got more information about the possibility of previous life there, than ever before. I think the scientific speculation covers, at LEAST millions of years, if not billions! [I can hear good old Carl Sagan saying the 'b' word!]
4] This is just a purely Sci-fictional reference here.– Anyone remember an unusually interesting [I think] British Sci-Fi movie called “Five Million Years to Earth”
[Here's the AMC Review: One of the outstanding science fiction movies that is not available on VHS or DVD. [I think it may be available now?] The movie takes you through horror, suspense, science fiction, and an amazing concept of the origin of man. A low budget but with great acting and fantastic representation of a living space craft and the beings that came from Mars. A must see for any true sci-fi fan.– Randy – Athens, AL “]
The film suggests a similar idea to what I’m ‘on about’ here. Perhaps the origin of man on THIS planet occurred in, what may be, a universal galactic ‘Life Spreading’ fashion. I think, even Sagan speculated that, aside from the fact that we’re mere ‘Kindergartners’ regarding science and space travel [and that we are a rather vicious lot! …"O'Reilly?"], the reason other Planetary Life doesn’t pop in to say “Woo-hoo, we’re here!”, is that it never gets past the same kind of things we’re arguing and killing each other over today; like: Self hatred, Self destructive Cosmologies…um, er…Religion…Zama, Zama!.
“You get my drift?…I’m NOT a Scientologist!…and I’m NOT a concierge, either!”
[Um...OK, a lame reference to the 'The Producers'!]
OK, I’m done!…back to the arguing?
….”and have a nice LIFE!”
10 July 2006, on 3:38 am
Jeremy Says:
Wasn’t the Great Leap Forward a secular movement, and didn’t it kill more people than all the “religious wars” combined?
Here we go. How to construct a logical fallacy:
Mao’s Great Leap Forward was not motivated by religion. Check.
It was also a great policy failure that led to millions of deaths. Check.
Since established religion was not involved, it must be seen as an irreligious, or atheist, movement. Check.
Since it failed disastrously, this is evidence that atheism and secularism lead to disaster.
What??
And what did the Great Leap Forward, besides not being religious, have to do with atheism or free thought? You’re blaming us for something somebody wasn’t? “Well, they weren’t religious. And since the only two choices when it comes to having a moral compass are to be religious or not… I find this fact very significant!”
Hey… If you aren’t religious, you must be something else.
Yes.
Well, this murderer wasn’t religious.
So?
So he must have been something else.
And?
And if he was, you must be just like him.
Why?
Because he isn’t religious and neither are you.
I don’t wear white, either.
I know someone else who doesn’t wear white.
You do?
He’s evil.
He is?
If you won’t wear white, you must be evil, too.
Wait… It’s not like I’m wearing a swastika. We both just don’t happen to wear white. It doesn’t denote a belief system.
Criminal. You aren’t wearing white and the day will come when it is obvious that your non-whiteness is destroying the world.
BZZZZT! Try again.
Wasn’t the Great Leap Forward a secular movement, and didn’t it kill more people than all the “religious wars” combined?
Fallacy: Mao’s Great Leap Forward was not motivated by religion. It was also a great policy failure that led to millions of deaths. Since established religion was not involved, it must be seen as an irreligious, or atheist, movement. Since it failed disastrously, this is evidence that atheism and secularism lead to disaster.
BZZZZT! Try again.
10 July 2006, on 7:09 am
He wasn’t saying that atheism always leads to disaster or that the Great Leap Forward was so disastrous because it was a secular movement.
10 July 2006, on 7:44 am
Bbb says,
“He wasn’t saying that atheism always leads to disaster or that the Great Leap Forward was so disastrous because it was a secular movement.”
Jeremy says,
“Wasn’t the Great Leap Forward a secular movement, and didn’t it kill more people than all the “religious wars” combined?”
I don’t know, Bbb, it sounds like he’s saying the GLForward was secular, murderous, and effectively cancels out the paltry damage done in the name of one god or another. He wants the disaster of the movement, the death toll, if you will, in the atheist column even as he skips the step about Communism being a StateGod religion in and of itself.
And, just for fun, what about all the children who have died from starvation or other poverty-typical diseases due to the Pope’s prohibition on contraception, what about all the women who have died in childbirth for the same reason? See, it’s not just about wars- though I guess you could call that the war on pleasure, on information, on empty pews.
10 July 2006, on 9:14 am
Raindog points out:
Bbb says,
He wasn’t saying that atheism always leads to disaster or that the Great Leap Forward was so disastrous because it was a secular movement.
What are you talking about? Please clarify your brief, incoherent assertion. From where I sit, he just blamed the Great Leap Forward on secularism and, as RDZ points out, used it to negate every heinous thing ever done in the name of religion. From the Crusades to the Muslim invasions, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the medieval witch hunts, to the Salem witch trials, the wars between Israel and the whole of the Middle East, the slaughters between Muslims and Hindus in India, the endless tragedy between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, the jihadism of the Muslim world vs. the Xian fundie preemptive war structure of current U.S. foreign policy.
Ah, it goes on.
10 July 2006, on 9:58 am
Wasn’t the Great Leap Forward a secular movement, and didn’t it kill more people than all the “religious wars” combined?
Xians ALWAYS pull out this argument as if bringing up that “secularists do it too” justifies the atrocities committed by religion. Yet they proclaim how we need religion to live in a “moral” more “orderly” world. Religion hasn’t and still doesn’t make a more peaceful and orderly world. This should prove, if anything that religion doesn’t help AT ALL and actually makes things worse. Most religions don’t even provide any sort of example EXCEPT how to judge, oppress, and kill your fellow human beings or place on them an oogie boogie “death” sentence (curse) to hell for simply not believing in their gawds. Religion just gives human beings more excuses to kill and oppress other human beings.
Mao made himself a religious icon. Little red book replaces Bible, etc. Wikipedia: Mao is most remembered for the Cult of Mao, the personality cult that was created around him. Mao presented himself as an enemy of landowners, businessmen, and Western and American imperialism, as well as an ally of impoverished peasants, farmers and workers. (Sounds like the current muslim religious freaks.)
Wars in the middle east and our present and never-ending war on terrorism is because of RELIGIOUS CONVICTION.
10 July 2006, on 10:23 am
Mao said the following about cults at the 1958 Party congress in Chengdu, where he expressed support for the idea of personality cults—even ones like Stalin’s:
“There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship.”
10 July 2006, on 12:11 pm
Even if religion was all rainbows and sunshine, the fact that they don’t use birth control and have huge families is enough of a threat to our continued survival to merit abandoning religion. Has anybody ever seen graphs of what happens to populations when they exceed the carrying capacity of their environment?
10 July 2006, on 12:37 pm
Nymphalidea
The natural carrying capacity of the earth is estimated to be between 2-3 billion. With energy uses of food production and modern technology to build UP. We have pushed that population to 6 billion and many are starving while at the same time food production is not keeping up with the ever growing increase. We are at the limit of our abilities to accomodate more people. And yet the churches want nothing to do with birth control or family planning. Their idea of family planning is to let god do it for them.
When we abandon god and become responsible for our lives and our world we will be on the true path of freedom. The churches always use starving populations for their own benefit. Demands on the system that are not met are relegated to the charities and in turn we now have faith-based orgs turning poverty and need into their own brand o GREED. Fuckem.
10 July 2006, on 1:13 pm
What are you talking about? Please clarify your brief, incoherent assertion. From where I sit, he just blamed the Great Leap Forward on secularism and, as RDZ points out, used it to negate every heinous thing ever done in the name of religion. From the Crusades to the Muslim invasions, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the medieval witch hunts, to the Salem witch trials, the wars between Israel and the whole of the Middle East, the slaughters between Muslims and Hindus in India, the endless tragedy between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, the jihadism of the Muslim world vs. the Xian fundie preemptive war structure of current U.S. foreign policy.
No, you’ll have to demonstrate that he was blaming the great Leap Forward on secularism.
Basically, Jeremy was saying
1. The Great Leap Forward was a disaster.
2. The Great Leap Forward was secular.
3. More people were killed as a result of it than all the religous wars (I’m not sure how accurate this is).
but he didn’t say:
The Great Leap Forward was a disaster directly because it was non-religous.
Jeremy may be some fundy fucktard, but, the point is that the abolition of religion is no ultimate solution, as secular movements have been every bit as disastrous as religious movements. And he didn’t use it to “negate” all the religous atrocities.
All this is quite evident – how about you engage your brain fully before you launch into another weak screed.
10 July 2006, on 2:19 pm
I think humans have populated so heavily at this point that we’re like cancer. Cells turn on, propagate, and turn off all the time in our bodies. Cancer, at its base, is just a cell that turned on and couldn’t or wouldn’t turn off. It grows out of control and destroys its host, thereby destroying itself.
There are too many of us to be sustainable anymore. I would say that we would need to regulate births, but how can one truly enforce something like that globally? Also, it is likely far too late for it to have any significant effect now.
I realize that this answer has nothing to do with religion, and that’s probably because I am actually hopeful for the continuing secularization of our world on the global scale. Already there are more secularly governed nations that theocratic ones. Those that are even partly secular seem to be continuing to secularize. The growing trend IS secularization. Of course, there are the glaring atrocities (e.g. the US, the Middle East, et al), but on the whole I feel that the religious strongholds are weakening.
10 July 2006, on 2:53 pm
Jeremy may be some fundy fucktard, but, the point is that the abolition of religion is no ultimate solution, as secular movements have been every bit as disastrous as religious movements. And he didn’t use it to “negate” all the religous atrocities.
The point is that some call the Great Leap Forward, for example, a secular movement when in reality it was religious in nature. The Cult of Mao was exactly like a religion. The reading of the little Red Book…”altars” with Mao’s image…his image EVERYWHERE to “inspire” people. When we talk about letting go of religion, it is MORE than just established and organized religion — it is RELIGIOUS AND SUPERSTITIOUS THINKING in general. Otherwise humans will just exchange one gawd for another, and one religion/mythology for another.
10 July 2006, on 3:06 pm
If you read this thread, bbb, you would know that we weren’t literally talking about abolishing religion. We’re talking about leaving it in our primitive past and moving on.
And you’re still manipulating the facts. You conveniently side-stepped the most contentious statement made (which is utter tripe, and the whole reason for the argument in the first place):
More people were killed as a result of it than all the religous wars (I’m not sure how accurate this is).
Maybe you should “engage” your brain fully before you apologize for another gaping hole in the “logic” of this “argument.” Go find out how many people have died as a result of secularism compared to all the religious wars combined. Write me a paper on it. Extra credit if you can actually stop lying about what has been said so far in this thread. What are you, by the way? An Ignorance Apologist?
10 July 2006, on 8:10 pm
Star: When we talk about letting go of religion, it is MORE than just established and organized religion — it is RELIGIOUS AND SUPERSTITIOUS THINKING in general. Otherwise humans will just exchange one gawd for another, and one religion/mythology for another.
Ramen, Star!
11 July 2006, on 1:59 am
How come these guys aren’t out proselytizing. At least I know they’ve never contacted me.
Magic mushrooms can induce mystical effects, study finds
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1171389.ece
This is just like religion and we know of the reason why. Can anyone say “chemically induced”
11 July 2006, on 8:43 am
Jimmer, they do proselytize, just not door to door unless their stupid. I don’t think the Peyote Churches proselytize either but that doesn’t mean you can’t seek their, um, wisdom, for a small fee.
23 August 2007, on 4:23 pm
Popular Science…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…