Lost civilizations

Originally posted by K T Ong: Suit yourself. Until you provide some substantiation for your optimism, I'll treat it as just... your opinion.

Just as your pessimism is your opinion [img]smile.gif[/img] I did ask you to name two indications that we are on the brink of destruction [img]smile.gif[/img] I can't think of any actually...our worst threat was unrestricted nuclear war by the two Super Powers, and that is pretty much gone bye bye, oh there may yet be limited exchanges but not global destruction [img]smile.gif[/img]

I also prefer to live happy and not gloomy [img]smile.gif[/img] If I were seriously worried about the world and civilization being destroyed I would not havehad kids...and I seriously did consider the issue. Ahh well I hope you cheer up eventually [img]smile.gif[/img]

[K T Ong]

There's so much literature on the subject all around the place, I honestly don't think you would need any indications from me.

Originally posted by K T Ong: There's so much literature on the subject all around the place, I honestly don't think you would need any indications from me.

Okey doke. But on a more serious note. I really don't want any antagonism between us..we each have vastly different views on some subjects, I just want to say, I don't mean any disrespect toward you or your views and I do read what you have to say. Anyhoo Peace man!

[K T Ong]

Okay. Olive branch accepted.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by K T Ong: I don't think so; from what I understand, the two cities were nuked [img]tongue.gif[/img] because their inhabitants were all gay, with 'gaiety' being a big no-no in the Judaeo-Christian tradition...

Im pretty sure there is no mention of them being nuked because they were gay. There were a number of "sinful" practices listed for those citys among which sodomy may have been one, but I recall also wickedness, sexual relations with animals and general ungodliness being factors as well as a whole slew of things I cant recall at the moment [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just as a matter of speculation...my own that is. I think the only real reason (other than health issues) early Christians and Jews were against homosexuality was due to the reletive scarcity of humans. I think it all had to do with propogating the species, which homosexuality wether Lesbian or otherwise does absolutley nothing to promote. In those early times it was important to increase the population, and to increase the strength (manpower) of your tribe in order to preserve your genetic line.....just my musings there.
[/QUOTE]Your homosexuality vs. population theory does make alot of sense. Although it may not be the case universally. As late as the fourth century BC, homosexuality was engrained into normality within Greek society. Man-boy relationships were commonplace, if not the norm in some areas. However, homsexuality between grown men was not acceptable behaviour, which I guess ties into your theory of it countering the propagation of the species.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by K T Ong: Suit yourself. Until you provide some substantiation for your optimism, I'll treat it as just... your opinion.

Just as your pessimism is your opinion [img]smile.gif[/img] I did ask you to name two indications that we are on the brink of destruction [img]smile.gif[/img] I can't think of any actually...our worst threat was unrestricted nuclear war by the two Super Powers, and that is pretty much gone bye bye, oh there may yet be limited exchanges but not global destruction [img]smile.gif[/img]

I also prefer to live happy and not gloomy [img]smile.gif[/img] If I were seriously worried about the world and civilization being destroyed I would not havehad kids...and I seriously did consider the issue. Ahh well I hope you cheer up eventually [img]smile.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]Heh, I normally don't like taking sides but I gotta say I'm with you on this one. Pessimism (like optimism) just isn't a truthful, reliable interpretation of the way things actually are. And no I don't think our society is on a collision course with fate either. And yes, seeing as we can choose to think positively or negatively we might as well accentuate the positive....but then again we shouldn't ignore the negative either (though I realize you wern't suggesting that we should).

[K T Ong]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Pessimism (like optimism) just isn't a truthful, reliable interpretation of the way things actually are. And no I don't think our society is on a collision course with fate either. And yes, seeing as we can choose to think positively or negatively we might as well accentuate the positive....but then again we shouldn't ignore the negative either (though I realize you wern't suggesting that we should).

I think it's not so much an issue of thinking positively or negatively, as an issue of recognising the signs that indicate what the outcome of our actions is likely to be. And changing our ways accordingly.

Modern industrial society simply cannot square with the integrity of the biosphere -- and therefore the survival of the human species -- in the long run. The Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth said it all. This need not be a counsel for despair, however -- it's up to us whether we want to change our ways so the planetary environment will not be in jeopardy. I have to admit, though, that I'm pessimistic to the extent that I do not foresee any major change on our part until it's just too late.

Hmmm, this thread has drifted a bit off topic, hasn't it?

[ 08-26-2002, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by K T Ong: Modern industrial society simply cannot square with the integrity of the biosphere -- and therefore the survival of the human species -- in the long run. The Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth said it all. This need not be a counsel for despair, however -- it's up to us whether we want to change our ways so the planetary environment will not be in jeopardy. I have to admit, though, that I'm pessimistic to the extent that I do not foresee any major change on our part until it's just too late. Hmmm, this thread has drifted a bit off topic, hasn't it?[/QB]

Industrial pollution/biodegradation probably won't seriously hamper the survival of future generations. I would predict that it shall make life alot less pleasant, and perhaps shall become completely impractical due to an eventual lack of consumable resources, but I really don't think the human race is going to wipe itself out. There is always a downside to society (any society in any time) as well as an upside. Just little humans, working together, that's all a society can ever be. No worries [img]smile.gif[/img]

And yes we have gone off-topic [img]smile.gif[/img] But ah well, so long as the conversation remains interesting and civil it's not really a problem, is it?

[K T Ong]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Industrial pollution/biodegradation probably won't seriously hamper the survival of future generations. I would predict that it shall make life alot less pleasant, and perhaps shall become completely impractical due to an eventual lack of consumable resources, but I really don't think the human race is going to wipe itself out. There is always a downside to society (any society in any time) as well as an upside. Just little humans, working together, that's all a society can ever be. No worries [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well, it will be bad enough already if life's going to get a lot less pleasant for most of us, or our children. Even if Homo Sapiens won't become completely extinct if we go on pissing Mother Nature off, even if we grant that there will be survivors, there will nevertheless still be large-scale eco-catastrophes that will wipe out large numbers of us. Which is not on.

It is interesting to note that in more than a few versions of the Atlantis myth(? ), the city was destroyed (like Sodom and Gomorrah) because the inhabitants had too much hubris; they thought they were as good as the gods themselves. The Arabs had a similar myth about an ancient city named Iram of the Tall Columns. (Iram, not Iran! ) Doesn't hurt to practice a little humility -- or, in our case, reverence for Nature.

And yes we have gone off-topic [img]smile.gif[/img] But ah well, so long as the conversation remains interesting and civil it's not really a problem, is it?

Agreed. And as you can see, I've brought it back 'on topic' again! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-26-2002, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

[Niadh]

There is proof of non-human influence in the past.

example 1 - The Baghdad battery pot

This pot dates to C.250BC, consists of a simple clay pot with a bitumen seal around the top. Inside is a copper cylinder, made from soldered copper, and housing an iron rod. Examination shows that the insides have been corroded by acid of some type. If filled with acid this pot would work as a battery. At 250bc there was no use for electricity. Why/how was this pot created?

example 2- Aztec Treasures

Small one, but Aztec tombs often contained model airplanes, able to be thrown and glide for a bit. As you may know Aztecs did not have real airplanes.

Example 3- Aerial pictures

Many older civilisations have large decoratinos madeinto the ground, in such as size as t obe highly visible from high up. Many of these images are in flat plains, leaving the question of what the images were for. The images often are highly detailed and have little/no mistakes.

Thats a few things to talk about