04 Feb 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelHave you actually checked their affordability? In most developed countries, especially sunny ones like Australia, they save money, so affordability is a poor excuse.
I did vote along environmental lines. I don't have a car. And I would get solar panels if I cold afford them.
And I do believe more and more people are choosing a sustainable future everyday.
And I don't see any evidence of that.
When I say "mass slaughter" , i mean like "war", not genocide.
Why would anyone use 'war' as 'recourse' to achieve sustainability? I think you are trying to back out of your somewhat unpalatable suggestion.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelHaving Trump survivors would be sufficient.
If we start to live to 150 it may change a lot in the future.
for example:Having actual holocust survivors in 20 or 30 years would be great for reminding us what not to do
The reality though is I never learned anything of significance from a holocaust survivor and have never met one to my knowledge.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelGood for you. You are in the minority. And sadly, most 'Green' parties are not environmentally friendly, ie there often isn't an easy way to genuinely vote along environmental lines. But still, we could talk to our politicians.
I did vote along environmental lines.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by apathistIt doesn't 'bother' me. Its just wrong. Why are you so insistent that it 'bothers' me rather than actually considering what I said? When someone disagrees with you it doesn't always mean you are on to something, sometimes it means you are wrong. Think on that for a bit.
Why does my view bother you.
We live on a mote of dust, in galactic terms. Do we not need to not pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink. That answers your first question.
No, I don't think it does. What we live on in 'galactic terms' is irrelevant. That's just a flawed way to try and make the earth seem smaller than it really is. In atomic terms, the earth is galactic in size.
As for not needing to pollute, sure, I agree, but that wasn't what I thought we were talking about.
Your third question: dude, we are on a starship. All of our resources need to be managed. Even the very starshine. Build a Dyson sphere and STILL there is a limit to what we can suck off of our sun. Third question dealt with.
Except we are a very very very very very very very very very very long way from ever needing all the energy of a Dyson sphere - if ever. You are like a fish in the ocean worrying about when the seas will dry up.
Your fourth question: you put 'manage' in quotes. Why? Do you advocate unrestricted growth? Have you met cancer?
I put manage in quotes because it could have various meanings as evidenced in this thread.
I note you haven't answered the actual question.
I do not advocate unrestricted growth, but if you had been following the thread, we don't have unrestricted growth. I do advocate doing something about the high birth rates in Africa, it is just politically not likely to happen. The americans and Catholics are against birth control, and the various wars do not appear to be ending any time soon.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by FMFNo my point is certain things are always wrong regardless of whether some people would think they aren't.
I was under the impression that your "point", such as it is, is that whatever you believe is morally right or wrong is a "moral absolute".
But now you seem to be saying that anything anyone happens to declare to be 'always wrong' makes it a "moral absolute".
Will you always agree that whatever anyone says is 'always wrong' is an "absolute morality" and that it also applies, in some way, to you?
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut so what if you or I think something is always wrong and somebody somewhere disagrees? I mean seriously: what of it? Your "point" is surely something more than 'Fetchmyjunk thinks certain things are always wrong'? The "point" I have been perceiving from you is that what you think is right and wrong is always, absolutely, objectively, truly, well and truly "universally true" on account of your superstitions.
No my point is certain things are always wrong regardless of whether some people would think they aren't.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by FMFIf moral absolutes do exist if follows logically that certain actions are always wrong regardless of whether FMJ or anyone else may disagree.
But so what if you or I think something is always wrong and somebody somewhere disagrees? I mean seriously: what of it? Your "point" is surely something more than 'Fetchmyjunk thinks certain things are always wrong'? The "point" I have been perceiving from you is that what you think is right and wrong is always, absolutely, objectively, truly, well and truly "universally true" on account of your superstitions.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAs you well know, I am not superstitious in the way you are and I do not attribute morality to the wishes of supernatural beings, as you do.
If moral absolutes do exist if follows logically that certain actions are always wrong regardless of whether FMJ or anyone else may disagree.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt's you who is insisting that there is a "god" role for someone or something to play. Not me. Claiming that 'the only option I am left with is...' to accept your superstitious premise blah blah blah... is nothing but one of your rhetorical gimmicks. Every single human being must strive to decide what is right or wrong; it is something that constitutes the very essence of human nature and the human condition. "Play God"?? Don't be daft.
So therefore you are left with the other option where you play God and decide what is right and wrong.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by FMFWhy should every human being strive to decide what is right and wrong if there is ultimately no single correct answer to 'what is right and wrong'?
It's you who is insisting that there is a "god" role for someone or something to play. Not me. Claiming that 'the only option I am left with is...' to accept your superstitious premise blah blah blah... is nothing but one of your rhetorical gimmicks. Every single human being must strive to decide what is right or wrong; it is something that constitutes the very essence of human nature and the human condition. "Play God"?? Don't be daft.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo, you have misunderstood again, wilfully I suppose. I suspect that you will never be able to understand the shortcomings of your own argument as you are unable to question your scripture.
If you are saying it is always wrong to do something that you wouldn't want anyone to do to you, you are affirming a moral absolute which actually proves my point.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by avalanchethecatLeftist ideology is for the left what scripture is to orthodox christians.
No, you have misunderstood again, wilfully I suppose. I suspect that you will never be able to understand the shortcomings of your own argument as you are unable to question your scripture.
Of course you can't see it because of your ideological beliefs.
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot backing out of anything. I have been highlighting possibilities but have more or less said that I really don't know what's coming in the next 20 or 30 years.
Have you actually checked their affordability? In most developed countries, especially sunny ones like Australia, they save money, so affordability is a poor excuse.
[b]And I do believe more and more people are choosing a sustainable future everyday.
And I don't see any evidence of that.
When I say "mass slaughter" , i mean like "war", not g ...[text shortened]... ieve sustainability? I think you are trying to back out of your somewhat unpalatable suggestion.
I live in government housing and don't have an option to purchase because it's an apartment. Solar panels would have to be approved by the housing commission.