ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags consumerism , globalization , industrialization , sustainability

Reply
Old 25th May 2006, 12:00 PM   #41
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,844
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Good luck to you Dredred.

I have explained a lot in my article - if you fail to understand it is your problem.
Will you be providing any evidence for your claims and assertions?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:20 PM   #42
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,926
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Will you be providing any evidence for your claims and assertions?
His arguments are all self contradictory.

Every time one of us has challenged him with a simple question, he either ignores us or changes the subject.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 01:30 PM   #43
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 5,849
Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand View Post
I found some of this posters work on a website. Have fun guys!
http://www.culturechange.org/industrial_mind.html
LLH
He also has his own website here.

In the section "correspondence with neuroscientists" Sushil Yadav even wrote to Oliver Sacks.
I look forward to Dr. Sacks' respectful and illuminating case study of Mr. Yadav.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:25 PM   #44
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,985
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
His arguments are all self contradictory.

Every time one of us has challenged him with a simple question, he either ignores us or changes the subject.
Sounds like a certain Dr. MAS, doesn't it...
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 09:37 AM   #45
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,766
This thread is funny. Sushil posted this exact same OP on another board I frequent months ago. I attempted to engage him there and got the same sort of non-response you guys are getting.
What a dork.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 10:27 AM   #46
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
 
nescafe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 864
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Darat,
There is an arsenal of 80,000 nuclear bombs which can destroy the planet several times over.
Nope, not a chance. The biosphere as we know it (mabye), but as for the actual planet....

Originally Posted by qntm.org/destroy
Detonating all the nuclear weapons ever created simultaneously, either all at one location or strategically placed around the globe. This will irradiate pretty much the entire globe and kill an awful lot of people, animals and plants, but will actually destroy very little of the planet itself.
nescafe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 06:14 AM   #47
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant View Post
I haven't read the opening post, but the observation that industrialised society destroys the environment is so damned obvious that anyone who denies it must indeed have completely lost their mind. Whether it destroys mind is another question. I'd certainly agree that we now live in a situation where we are so far away from our natural environment that we are slowly going completely insane.
I happened to come across this old thread of mine and thought of making it active once again because the issue of environmental destruction is even more important today than it was in 2006. UndercoverElephant, you were perhaps the lone sane voice on this thread last time and I want to thank you for your deep concern for the ecosystems.

Industrial Society has been spreading blatant lies over the years.

"Green Industry", "Green Technology", "Ethical Consumerism", "Sustainable Development".

These are contradictory terms – these are oxymorons.
Industrialization can never be green – it is impossible.

You cannot save a person after you have killed him.
You cannot save ecosystems after you have killed them for making consumer goods.



When we make consumer goods we kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land - directly or indirectly.

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems - all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.

It hardly matters whether it is "Capitalist Industrial Society" - "Communist Industrial Society" - or "Socialist Industrial Society".

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.

Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.

Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. What to speak of Rivers - entire Oceans have been polluted. Industry kills Water.

Industries/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel - and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.

Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.

When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.

When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.

Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.


We have limited resources/ ecosystems on earth which is just 40,000 km in circumference.

If we destroy ecosystems for fewer things [food, clothing, shelter] the ecosystems will last longer.

If we destroy ecosystems for more things [consumer goods] the ecosystems will finish much sooner.

The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.

This is common sense - plain common sense - which the so called smart, intelligent, advanced, civilized and developed Industrial Society does not possess.



We are alive because of ecosystems - we owe our very existence to ecosystems.

Industrial Society has destroyed most ecosystems within a span of 250 years after Industrial Revolution.

Industrial Society has destroyed necessary things [animals, trees, air, water and land] for making unnecessary things [consumer goods].

Ecosystems are not consumer goods that can be manufactured, repaired or restored by MultiNational Companies in industries and factories.



What is most amazing about the issue of sustainability is the fact that modern society is trying to sustain the unsustainable - it is trying to sustain a consumerist system which has existed for almost zero percent of human existence on earth. The present consumerist lifestyle has existed for about 100 years. If we compare this with the total duration of human existence on earth it comes to almost zero percent.

Economy is a non-issue. Environment is important. Economy will not even exist without environment. Humans will not even exist without environment.

Modern society has plunged to extreme depths of insanity.

Modern society thinks it can be sustainable while it continues producing thousands of consumer goods.

Modern society thinks a peaceul world is possible while it continues to sell billions of tonnes of weapons all over the world.

Modern society thinks cancer can be cured while it continues flooding the ecosystems with thousands of carcinogens.


On a small planet which is just 40,000 km in circumference the first rule of sustainability is - destroy less.

We destroy ecosystems for food - for clothing - for shelter - and for thousands of consumer goods.

The less we destroy - the more sustainable we are.

The fewer things we make - the more sustainable we are.


On a small planet like earth only a non-consumerist society can be sustainable - only a society that destroys ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter[and health care] can be sustainable.



When something goes wrong with our cars, computers and aeroplanes, we contact the manufacturer to know how they could be repaired - where they could be repaired.

All ecosystems on earth are getting destroyed moment by moment. To repair, restore and regenerate them we need to contact the manufacturer. But where is the manufacturer of ecosystems? There is no human manufacturer - There are no multiNational Companies that manufactured rivers and oceans, fertile soil, forests, millions of species, millions of members in millions of species, arctic ice and other glaciers.

About 30 years ago most people refused to believe that arctic ice was melting or could melt in future.

Then satellite pictures started appearing and provided proof with "before and after" pictures. People reluctantly accepted that ice was melting - but were still not alarmed. They said it would take hundreds of years - thousands of years for ice to melt to a dangerous level.

If we compare satellite pictures of arctic ice of this year with those taken 30 years ago we would know how alarming the situation is.

Weather is becoming hotter, irregular and unpredictable across the globe. We have lost most of the forests and a large percentage of ice in Arctic region and glaciers elsewhere. Forests and ice have played a major role in regulating wind speed and direction of wind and monsoon/ rain clouds. Weather patterns were fairly constant for thousands of years. All that is changing now. The summer season is no longer the same as before - winters are not the same and monsoon rains are also no longer the same as before.

In the coming years agriculture is going to collapse worldwide due to change and irregularity of weather. Man has already decimated fish in the oceans. There will be nothing left for man to eat. The human species is going to starve to death. Just wait and see what happens in the next two decades.

Every ecosystem is in grave danger. The doomsday scenario is approaching hundreds of times faster than predicted earlier. The signs - the indicators are already there - the recent climate changes - the extreme weather conditions - droughts, floods, fires, hurricanes and typhoons. The collapse has already happened for millions of other species - they have been decimated. Human collapse is very near - just around the corner.


sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 06:43 AM   #48
Nonpareil
Knave Errant
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A Cut Below
Posts: 6,361
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
"Green Industry", "Green Technology", "Ethical Consumerism", "Sustainable Development".
These are contradictory terms – these are oxymorons.
Industrialization can never be green – it is impossible.
False.

Quote:
You cannot save a person after you have killed him.
You cannot save ecosystems after you have killed them for making consumer goods.
The entire point is that green industry doesn't kill it.

Quote:
When we make consumer goods we kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land - directly or indirectly.
Yes, but green industry either replaces what it took - planting more trees, for example - or uses so little at such a low rate that the resource replenishes faster than it is used.

As the rest is simply babble, I'll break off here and leave you with this helpful tip: turn off the bold. It only makes you look like a nutcase. It does help every once in a while, but the way you use it is just silly.
__________________
"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett

Formerly Pure_Argent.
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 07:30 AM   #49
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,982
So....
assuming all your assertations are right, even though as others have mentioned you present no evidence but your own opinion.

What do you propose to do exactly?

Go back to the nice way our ancestors lived? What ancestors? pre-victorian? medieval? late iron age? Hunter gatherer?
Each one of these steps back also comes with the price of having to reduce the total human population by a factor 10 for each step (roughly speaking) and rapidly taking 40-60 years away from life expectancy.
Who would you say deserves NOT to die to live in your utopia? Or would you not select and just use a lottery of sorts?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 07:55 AM   #50
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,643
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
I happened to come across this old thread of mine and thought of making it active once again because the issue of environmental destruction is even more important today than it was in 2006.
And your ideas are still wrong.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 08:03 AM   #51
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 10,573
Sounds a little bit like the "unabomber manifesto"....
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 08:14 AM   #52
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,788
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
So....
assuming all your assertations are right, even though as others have mentioned you present no evidence but your own opinion.

What do you propose to do exactly?

Go back to the nice way our ancestors lived? What ancestors? pre-victorian? medieval? late iron age? Hunter gatherer?
Each one of these steps back also comes with the price of having to reduce the total human population by a factor 10 for each step (roughly speaking) and rapidly taking 40-60 years away from life expectancy.
Who would you say deserves NOT to die to live in your utopia? Or would you not select and just use a lottery of sorts?
Yes I was kind of wondering about the mathematics of growing sufficient food for for example - 62 million Brits and transporting it to them without any kind of machinery or cruelty to any animals while still providing us with sufficient leisure to feel all spiritual and at peace.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 08:22 AM   #53
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
 
Achán hiNidráne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,979
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
When we make consumer goods we kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land - directly or indirectly.
Am I the only one who notes the irony of this tree hugging loon making his little diatribe on a COMPUTER; a consumer good that kills "Animals [Sic], Trees [Sic], Air [Sic], Water [Sic] and Land [Sic] - directly or indirectly." [Emphasis the OP's]

How about the clothes on your back? The food that you eat. The shelter you dwell in?

__________________
"As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"
Achán hiNidráne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 08:30 AM   #54
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
 
Achán hiNidráne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,979
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post

Go back to Simple Living.
OK, and when you're dead from starvation, exposure, and disease, our evil consumerist culture will only be too happy build an eight lane express way over your bones.
__________________
"As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"
Achán hiNidráne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 08:35 AM   #55
Ferguson
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
I happened to come across this old thread of mine and thought of making it active once again because the issue of environmental destruction is even more important today than it was in 2006. UndercoverElephant, you were perhaps the lone sane voice on this thread last time and I want to thank you for your deep concern for the ecosystems.

Industrial Society has been spreading blatant lies over the years.

"Green Industry", "Green Technology", "Ethical Consumerism", "Sustainable Development".

These are contradictory terms – these are oxymorons.
Industrialization can never be green – it is impossible.

Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.


We have limited resources/ ecosystems on earth which is just 40,000 km in circumference.

If we destroy ecosystems for fewer things [food, clothing, shelter] the ecosystems will last longer.

If we destroy ecosystems for more things [consumer goods] the ecosystems will finish much sooner.
I can see you are a fan of dramatic rhetoric - impossible, decimate, destroy, etc.
But what you are missing is the renewability. Ecosystems do not have to be destroyed, a city fed by cows and corn, powered by wind, and dressed in cotton, wool, leather, etc., would be just fine until the sun burns out, without depleting (let alone decimating) anything.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.

This is common sense - plain common sense - which the so called smart, intelligent, advanced, civilized and developed Industrial Society does not possess.[/b]


We are alive because of ecosystems - we owe our very existence to ecosystems.

Industrial Society has destroyed most ecosystems within a span of 250 years after Industrial Revolution.

Industrial Society has destroyed necessary things [animals, trees, air, water and land] for making unnecessary things [consumer goods].

Ecosystems are not consumer goods that can be manufactured, repaired or restored by MultiNational Companies in industries and factories.



What is most amazing about the issue of sustainability is the fact that modern society is trying to sustain the unsustainable - it is trying to sustain a consumerist system which has existed for almost zero percent of human existence on earth. The present consumerist lifestyle has existed for about 100 years. If we compare this with the total duration of human existence on earth it comes to almost zero percent.

Economy is a non-issue. Environment is important. Economy will not even exist without environment. Humans will not even exist without environment.

Modern society has plunged to extreme depths of insanity.

Modern society thinks it can be sustainable while it continues producing thousands of consumer goods.

Modern society thinks a peaceul world is possible while it continues to sell billions of tonnes of weapons all over the world.

Modern society thinks cancer can be cured while it continues flooding the ecosystems with thousands of carcinogens.
This just demonstrates "modern society" is not monolithic. Different individuals pursue different ends. But these are problems which can be solved, trees can be planted, animals can be bred, and the "green" push has been causing companies to do exactly that - switch to renewable resources, reduce carbon footprint, use wind and solar energy, etc.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
On a small planet which is just 40,000 km in circumference the first rule of sustainability is - destroy less.

We destroy ecosystems for food - for clothing - for shelter - and for thousands of consumer goods.
Yes destroy less is good, and/or plant more. But none of those things has to destroy ecosystems. Does a squirrel decimate the environment by eating nuts? Of course not.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
The less we destroy - the more sustainable we are.

The fewer things we make - the more sustainable we are.


On a small planet like earth only a non-consumerist society can be sustainable - only a society that destroys ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter[and health care] can be sustainable.
It depends on the things we are destroying, and the things we are making. Making less wind turbines would make us less sustainable. Earth is also quite large, compared to human beings. When I leave the city limits, I can drive for many, many miles of grassy hills and forests, where many millions of organisms are going about their lives blissfully unaware of my presence.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
When something goes wrong with our cars, computers and aeroplanes, we contact the manufacturer to know how they could be repaired - where they could be repaired.

All ecosystems on earth are getting destroyed moment by moment. To repair, restore and regenerate them we need to contact the manufacturer. But where is the manufacturer of ecosystems? There is no human manufacturer - There are no multiNational Companies that manufactured rivers and oceans, fertile soil, forests, millions of species, millions of members in millions of species, arctic ice and other glaciers.
Rivers and forests can be and are created by companies. Species can "manufacture" themselves. Carbon output and species lost because of mankind are serious problems, but problems that can only be solved by the advancement of our society's technology towards renewable ends. Modern societies tend to be very protective of their species. For example, in 1940, there were 417 breeding pairs of Bald Eagle, in 2007, there were 9,789 pairs, and it is no longer endangered.


Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
About 30 years ago most people refused to believe that arctic ice was melting or could melt in future.

Then satellite pictures started appearing and provided proof with "before and after" pictures. People reluctantly accepted that ice was melting - but were still not alarmed. They said it would take hundreds of years - thousands of years for ice to melt to a dangerous level.

If we compare satellite pictures of arctic ice of this year with those taken 30 years ago we would know how alarming the situation is.
Here, you argue against yourself again. Thanks to modern technology like satellites, we have identified our impact on the environment, and began to take (tiny) steps to correct the problem. As awareness increases, these steps will become larger and more effective.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Weather is becoming hotter, irregular and unpredictable across the globe. We have lost most of the forests and a large percentage of ice in Arctic region and glaciers elsewhere. Forests and ice have played a major role in regulating wind speed and direction of wind and monsoon/ rain clouds. Weather patterns were fairly constant for thousands of years. All that is changing now. The summer season is no longer the same as before - winters are not the same and monsoon rains are also no longer the same as before.
No they weren't. Weather patterns change for many reasons. Humans have experienced an ice age as well as a warm period. Modern climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions is a serious problem, but one that can only be reasonably solved by the action of modern, technological, societies. If a car slips off an icy bridge, "destroy all bridges" is an irrational emotional reaction which will result in more problems, not less. Developing better traction and freeze-resistant surfaces is a solution that solves the problem. Destroying "society" can not solve environmental problems. Paradoxically it would likely create more damage, as the "hunt what you can find" "noble savage" mentality of old lead to the extinction of megafauna and the near-extinction of the bald eagle.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
In the coming years agriculture is going to collapse worldwide due to change and irregularity of weather. Man has already decimated fish in the oceans. There will be nothing left for man to eat. The human species is going to starve to death. Just wait and see what happens in the next two decades.
But what about the fish in fisheries? This also brings about another paradox of your argument, one local to me. One problem here is fish populations in the Great Lakes, commercial (and individual) fishers are limited in the species and amounts they are allowed to catch and sell/eat - the others are released, while the government spends money to breed and release large batches of fish into the lakes (to replace the ones fished plus some). However the American Indian tribes are not subject to these laws, which results in massive overfishing by those tribes. Here, again, is an example where modern society is solving a problem, where individuals without that society to "answer to" exacerbate it.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Every ecosystem is in grave danger. The doomsday scenario is approaching hundreds of times faster than predicted earlier. The signs - the indicators are already there - the recent climate changes - the extreme weather conditions - droughts, floods, fires, hurricanes and typhoons. The collapse has already happened for millions of other species - they have been decimated. Human collapse is very near - just around the corner.
This has been said at least once a year, for at least the last 2,000 years. If by just around the corner you mean within any of our lifetimes, you are grossly misinformed, barring a freak asteroid impact.

Last edited by Ferguson; 22nd February 2010 at 08:53 AM.
Ferguson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 08:42 AM   #56
Ferguson
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Who would you say deserves NOT to die to live in your utopia? Or would you not select and just use a lottery of sorts?
I think we already know his answer (it's his favorite word): decimation.
And actual decimation, i.e. drawing lots so that 1 in 10 is chosen to die, killed by the other 9. Of course, to get to "sustainable" levels we'd have to do it recursively 60-70 times...
Ferguson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 10:08 AM   #57
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
So....
assuming all your assertations are right, even though as others have mentioned you present no evidence but your own opinion.

What do you propose to do exactly?

Go back to the nice way our ancestors lived? What ancestors? pre-victorian? medieval? late iron age? Hunter gatherer?

Since when did "simple living" become equivalent to hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

When you fall sick you rush to the doctor to save yourself.

When you fall sick you rush to the hospital to save yourself.

But when the earth falls sick - when the ecosystems are dying you are just not bothered.

The first rule of sustainability is destroy less. The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.

Provide food, clothing, shelter and healthcare to people - not unnecessary consumer goods.

A society that destroys ecosystems for consumer goods in addition to food, clothing and shelter is the least sustainable - and will exist for the shortest duration.

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Last edited by sushil_yadav; 22nd February 2010 at 10:20 AM.
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 10:19 AM   #58
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Pure_Argent View Post
Yes, but green industry either replaces what it took - planting more trees, for example - or uses so little at such a low rate that the resource replenishes faster than it is used.
Man can repair and restore things that have been made by man himself. Car, Computer, Aeroplane, Rocket - if anything goes wrong with these things man can repair and restore.

Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment - because man did not make Nature/ Environment. Once a Forest is destroyed - it is gone for millions of years. One cannot create a Forest in 5 or 50 years - it takes millions of years to make a forest - containing millions of species of animals, insects, birds, plants and trees. Man can create a plantation in 5 or 50 years - not a forest.

The only way to save Environment is by not destroying it - leave it alone - leave it undisturbed. If you destroy Environment you cannot repair and restore it.

No Multi National Company can manufacture the Amazon Rainforests.
No MNC can manufacture Rivers and Oceans.
No MNC can manufacture Mountains and Deserts.
No MNC can manufacture milions of species and fertile soil.
No MNC can manufacture the Sun.

The glaciers have melted. Arctic Ice has melted. Man can use all his Technology - all the Refrigeration and AirConditioning Technology but he will not be able to recreate the glaciers and Arctic Ice.

Many species of wild animals used to have hundreds of thousands/ millions of members. Now it is down to a few hundred/ a few thousand. Which MNC is going to restore the animal population to its original level?

The Oceans have almost been emptied of all large Fish. Which MNC is going to bring the Fish back in the Ocean?

Man has hunted down several species to extinction after Industrial Revolution. Which MNC is going to make them reappear?

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 10:20 AM   #59
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,121
What does this remind me of?
Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman
Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.
Oh yeah.

So what do you propose we do? On the one hand, you want us to produce less, but you also want us to increase production of food, clothing and shelter. Does not compute. Do you have any sort of actual proposal, or just a bunch of platitudes?
__________________
"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
Sledge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 10:28 AM   #60
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
 
Third Eye Open's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,402
Get off the internet and go live in the woods then, fraking hippie.
__________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly
Third Eye Open is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 10:37 AM   #61
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Achán hiNidráne View Post
Am I the only one who notes the irony of this tree hugging loon making his little diatribe on a COMPUTER; a consumer good that kills "Animals [Sic], Trees [Sic], Air [Sic], Water [Sic] and Land [Sic] - directly or indirectly." [Emphasis the OP's]
Computers are being used today because they exist - because they are being manufactured. Was anyone using computers 1000 years ago when they did not exist?

People rush to post without even understanding the issues. Did I ever claim I am not a part of society that is destroying the ecosystems. The topic of my article says - Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment - and since I am living in a city and am a part of "Industrial Society" I get included automatically.

By the way , let me tell you - the computer I am using belongs to someone else in the family. I am using very few other consumer goods and services. If you are bothered about my use of computer then I invite you to post a list of all the consumer goods and services you are using - I will post my list - and then we shall compare to find out who is a bigger burden on earth.

I find it ironic that you have no concern/ compassion for Environment despite the fact that you owe your very existence to nature/ environment.

Why do you breathe the Air?

Why do you drink the Water?

Why do you eat the Food that comes from Soil? - Why don't you have Computers for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Take all your technology to the Moon - and try producing a single grain of Food without using any natural ingredient from Earth.


In the absence of Nature your grandfather would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature your father would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature you would'nt have lived.

Show some respect to Nature.


sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Last edited by sushil_yadav; 22nd February 2010 at 10:38 AM.
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 11:00 AM   #62
Nonpareil
Knave Errant
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A Cut Below
Posts: 6,361
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
When you fall sick you rush to the doctor to save yourself.

When you fall sick you rush to the hospital to save yourself.

But when the earth falls sick - when the ecosystems are dying you are just not bothered.
Have you not been paying attention to anything that has happened in that last... I dunno... ten years?

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Man can repair and restore things that have been made by man himself. Car, Computer, Aeroplane, Rocket - if anything goes wrong with these things man can repair and restore.

Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment - because man did not make Nature/ Environment.
Bollocks. Not only is this an unsupported assertion, it is directly contradicted by the evidence. There are instances all over the world of people rebuilding the environment: planting more trees, saving endangered species, removing pollution from the lakes.

Again, you descend into ranting, so let's move on...

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Computers are being used today because they exist - because they are being manufactured. Was anyone using computers 1000 years ago when they did not exist?
What was the average life expectancy one thousand years ago? What kind of laws were in place that protected the environment? What limitations were placed on pollution and deforestation?

Quote:
In the absence of Nature your grandfather would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature your father would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature you would'nt have lived.

Show some respect to Nature.
What part of "green industry attempts to protect the environment" do you not understand?
__________________
"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett

Formerly Pure_Argent.
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 11:33 AM   #63
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 5,849
Originally Posted by Ferguson View Post
When I leave the city limits, I can drive for many, many miles of grassy hills and forests, where many millions of organisms are going about their lives blissfully unaware of my presence.
At least until they try crossing the road on which you are driving to get to their breeding ponds. Even if humans would go all out green, we would still have a huge impact on the environment, because many of our infrastructural works cut right through ecosystems and migratory paths. Habitat fragmentation is a very serious environmental issue, and there is not a whole lot we can do about it while still maintaining a modern technological society.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 11:35 AM   #64
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,361
There's something amusing, in a sad way, about someone who posts rants against the evil of industrial society... on the internet.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 11:48 AM   #65
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,121
I remember hearing about some guy who claimed he lived without money. What that translated to was stealing out of dumpsters, charging an interviewer in goods rather than cash, and using library internet access that other people had paid for. Still, at least he wasn't just posting ill-informed rants on the internet, he was also making his life thoroughly miserable.
__________________
"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
Sledge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 05:20 PM   #66
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,996
Not that I agree, but succinctness is SO nice for a change

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant View Post
I haven't read the opening post, but the observation that industrialised society destroys the environment is so damned obvious that anyone who denies it must indeed have completely lost their mind. Whether it destroys mind is another question. I'd certainly agree that we now live in a situation where we are so far away from our natural environment that we are slowly going completely insane.
How long did it take you to write that? Twenty years, I'm betting.

Tell the truth now.
__________________
Capitalists are like children: If they aren't supervised, they get up to mischief.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 05:26 PM   #67
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,996
Simplify, simplify!

Originally Posted by Sledge View Post
I remember hearing about some guy who claimed he lived without money. What that translated to was stealing out of dumpsters, charging an interviewer in goods rather than cash, and using library internet access that other people had paid for. Still, at least he wasn't just posting ill-informed rants on the internet, he was also making his life thoroughly miserable.
Come to that, Thoreau went to dinner at other people's houses pretty often, and lived at home much of his life.

And sometimes reading Henry David makes me -- well, not miserable, to be sure, but vaguely unhappy.

Reading Sushi-Yada gives me miles of smiles. 'Scuse me, I have to go take my meds now.
__________________
Capitalists are like children: If they aren't supervised, they get up to mischief.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 09:57 PM   #68
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
There's something amusing, in a sad way, about someone who posts rants against the evil of industrial society... on the internet.
So how do you want me to tell you about the evils of Industrial Society - through pigeon mail?

Do you use pigeon mail?

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 10:35 PM   #69
Trent Wray
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
I swear that when I first read this sentence, I thought it said:
"Emoticons are what we experience during gaps in our thinking." LOL

Okay, Industrialized society destroys mind and environment, while without it the environment has a tendency to wreak havoc on us and destroy us. We don't live as long, we are prone to more disease, etc and so forth. With this comes evils as well. Viruses can mutate according to our immunities and become resistant to medicines, guns can bring us food while they can also kill people, etc and so forth.

BUT ... the bottom line is, when someone is suffering and we have a way to alleviate that pain, we will go to great lengths to do so. If my child wants a prosthetic limb, I'll try to get him one. If we have clean water and know a way to help other countries eradicate the ills that come from unclean water, who is to say we should sit back and watch that suffering.

Industrialization comes because we want more than the natural world has to offer. We want to rest more, be safer, be happier, be healthier, live longer, not suffer as much, we want to express ourselves more, etc and so forth. When we get greedy we kill, destroy, abuse, hoard, etc and so forth.

So is industrialization the issue or what fuels it?
Trent Wray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 02:28 AM   #70
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,121
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
So how do you want me to tell you about the evils of Industrial Society - through pigeon mail?
Through example. Show us how we should live. If it's successful, word will spread.
__________________
"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
Sledge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 04:35 AM   #71
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
sushil_yadav - I started to read your post however I quickly noticed that all you are making is assertions - I didn't see where you provide any evidence for any of your statements?

Do you have any evidence to support the many, many claims you make in your post?
No he does not.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 04:37 AM   #72
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Computers are being used today because they exist - because they are being manufactured. Was anyone using computers 1000 years ago when they did not exist?

People rush to post without even understanding the issues. Did I ever claim I am not a part of society that is destroying the ecosystems. The topic of my article says - Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment - and since I am living in a city and am a part of "Industrial Society" I get included automatically.

By the way , let me tell you - the computer I am using belongs to someone else in the family. I am using very few other consumer goods and services. If you are bothered about my use of computer then I invite you to post a list of all the consumer goods and services you are using - I will post my list - and then we shall compare to find out who is a bigger burden on earth.

I find it ironic that you have no concern/ compassion for Environment despite the fact that you owe your very existence to nature/ environment.

Why do you breathe the Air?

Why do you drink the Water?

Why do you eat the Food that comes from Soil? - Why don't you have Computers for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Take all your technology to the Moon - and try producing a single grain of Food without using any natural ingredient from Earth.


In the absence of Nature your grandfather would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature your father would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature you would'nt have lived.

Show some respect to Nature.


sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Are you related to NationalCosmipolitan?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 05:00 AM   #73
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Since when did "simple living" become equivalent to hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

When you fall sick you rush to the doctor to save yourself.

When you fall sick you rush to the hospital to save yourself.

But when the earth falls sick - when the ecosystems are dying you are just not bothered.

The first rule of sustainability is destroy less. The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.

Provide food, clothing, shelter and healthcare to people - not unnecessary consumer goods.

A society that destroys ecosystems for consumer goods in addition to food, clothing and shelter is the least sustainable - and will exist for the shortest duration.

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Ok, so what ARE useless consumer goods then? More than 2 sets of clothing each? Cars? Computers? Did you want to set a limit to what a person is allowed to eat each day?
Bear in mind that I don't deny that industrial society has had/is having a negative effect on the world's ecosystem, but any attempt to scale it back would in my opinion be worse. After all out progress has made most industries less polluting and we need an industrial society to move food and stuff around for the current world's population, even without consumer goods.
Besides, even if we were to kill off ourselves and most of higher life due to our lifestyle, there would be enough left over to start again.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 06:19 AM   #74
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,788
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Since when did "simple living" become equivalent to hunter-gatherer lifestyle?
But you are not advocating simple living, you are advocating a post-industrial society with no cities.

How exactly is that achieved? Do we do it with current population levels or do the population levels have to be reduced? How is this achieved?

I am presuming that you intend for this to be an agrarian society, although farming destroys eco-systems too. There is not much bio-diversity in a wheat field.

How are these fields going to be ploughed and tilled? In a non-industrial society there will be no tractors or any mechanical farm equipment. You do not approve of mistreatment of animals so a return of the Clydesdale and Percheron is out of the question.

Take as an example Great Britain - with a population of about 62 million, all of whom have to eat and drink every day.

So are you proposing that people manually work the fields in order to grow sufficient food for all of them? Do you have any idea of how difficult it is to manually plough a field? To manually sow a field? To manually reap a field? Do you have any idea how long each of these tasks would take, without machinery?

And how would the food be transported to them - presumably we are going to go back to dirt roads?

And health care for all? But with no way of manufacturing medicine, no vehicles to transport people to hospitals, no power stations to provide power to the hospitals.

So this is what people are saying - be specific about what you are proposing, give details and examples of how it is going to work.

It is easy enough to reel off a few slogans about environmental havoc, and the simple life.

But it is a lot harder to devise a plan for addressing the problem.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 07:43 AM   #75
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
 
RenaissanceBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,102
I think Pol Pot tried this approach.
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine
"Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker
RenaissanceBiker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 07:52 AM   #76
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,982
Also, having had a boring meeting to think about it

Can you give us examples of how YOU are achieving your simpler living?
You do not use electricity except when using your computer?
You cook on a wood stove with self cut wood from trees you replant?
You weave your own clothing from hemp or flax or cotton you gather yourself?
none of the above but you buy no dvd's, games, fastfood?

Since you've thought about it for over 20 years, clearly you must live by a strict regime at least for yourself. Any examples would be greatly appreciated.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 09:58 AM   #77
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 24,391
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth. Why? Because I care about people.


__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 10:01 AM   #78
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
Sushil: Has it occurred to you that there's a supreme irony in your attacking industrial society via an internet posting?

As far as destruction of the environment goes, simple over grazing of grasslands probably helped create and expand the Sahara Desert. Primitive over irrigation increased the salinity of the soil in Mesopotamia. Agriculture large spread because primitive agriculturalists planted the same cop over and over, and exhausted the soil. Thus, they had to move to a new location. Eventually they figured out such strategies as letting some of the land lie fallow, manuring fields etc.

This is not to say that modern technology isn't responsible for such things as the overuse of DDT or dumping dioxins into rivers. However, I don't think we need abolish cities and technology to save the environment.
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 10:03 AM   #79
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So this is what people are saying - be specific about what you are proposing, give details and examples of how it is going to work.

It is easy enough to reel off a few slogans about environmental havoc, and the simple life.

But it is a lot harder to devise a plan for addressing the problem.
I never claimed that I have a solution. I am pointing out the fact that by promoting consumerism we are only making the problem bigger and bigger day by day.

Is it possible to find a solution if the human species has been moving on the wrong path for almost 250 years?

Man started destroying extra after Industrial Revolution.

This extra destruction has risen exponentially in the last 50 years.

Before Industrial Revolution humans destroyed ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter.

After Industrialization humans have destroyed ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter and thousands of consumer goods.

What would happen to your home if 1000 people entered and started doing work continuously - 24 X 7 - picking up things already lying in the house, breaking them up and making new things out of them without stopping?

A similar thing is happening to the planet - 6.8 billion people continuously engaging in work - destroying the ecosystems moment by moment.


Work has turned into overwork, unnecessary work, destructive work.

People who are working to provide food, clothing, shelter and healthcare are doing work - rest of the population is engaged in overwork, unnecessary work, destructive work.

Ecosystems are not consumer goods that can be manufactured / created by MultiNational Corporations. Who can undo the damage that has been done to ecosystems by billions of people over a period of 200 - 250 years?

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Last edited by sushil_yadav; 23rd February 2010 at 10:17 AM.
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 10:24 AM   #80
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,121
Ah, you haven't got a solution. That's kind of pathetic after 20 years thought, isn't it?
__________________
"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
Sledge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.