The asteroid-deflector doesn't have the incidental effect of killing us all.You just made that part up, because the idea that technology might save life on earth from a natural disaster would undermine your whole value-system (in which nature is a benevolent god and technology only causes harm).
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:28,
archived)
it dependsyou can have technology thats good and tech thats bad.
With our current cultural vision designing it we will fail and double our chances of detruction, it would become inevitable.
But if we had a cultural change to our vision ( that has happened lots of times in human history) to bring it more in line with the cultural vision that evolved with man from the start of time then we would have every hope of surviving.
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:31,
archived)
With our current cultural vision designing it we will fail and double our chances of detruction, it would become inevitable.
But if we had a cultural change to our vision ( that has happened lots of times in human history) to bring it more in line with the cultural vision that evolved with man from the start of time then we would have every hope of surviving.
depends what happens to manthe tech and intelligence we know today , NO, it would not work.
The tech of a new ( remembered )vision driving us, YES.
Hypothetical question for you :
If you realised everything your cultural vision was founded on was a lie and would lead to human extinction, would you still believe the lies and carry on to fit in with the flock ,or would you drop that cultural vision ?
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:39,
archived)
The tech of a new ( remembered )vision driving us, YES.
Hypothetical question for you :
If you realised everything your cultural vision was founded on was a lie and would lead to human extinction, would you still believe the lies and carry on to fit in with the flock ,or would you drop that cultural vision ?
I'll come back to that, because we haven't got to the best bit yet.You've chosen to deflect the asteroid. This is because, in the judgement of you, a human, it's what's best for nature. Are you comfortable with that?
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:43,
archived)
your trying to put words into ityou put into the hypothetical question an asteroid mechanic that was foolproof and not dangerous to life on earth in any way, something that we will NEVER reach with our current cultural vision. So in your hypothetical question that will never come true the answer would be yes, but in reality the answer would be no.
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:51,
archived)
Soyou're not in principle adverse to deciding what's best for nature.
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:52,
archived)
every creatureon the planet has an inbuilt desire to live,
thats part of nature, to deny it is to deny you are part of nature.
To sometimes give as good as you get is part of nature too.
But to try to conquer is not.
To think ( agricultural vision) you are above nature and outside of its laws is foolish, and unintelligent.
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:58,
archived)
thats part of nature, to deny it is to deny you are part of nature.
To sometimes give as good as you get is part of nature too.
But to try to conquer is not.
To think ( agricultural vision) you are above nature and outside of its laws is foolish, and unintelligent.