Science will surely destroy the planet

[lucent]

That wasn't your original scenario. Don't move the goalposts.

I modified my original scenario since you don't want to address it but rather pawn it off with a weak argument. A country that is under attack by weapons of mass destruction is not going to have any restraint. For example, Syria has indicated that if we attempted to take it out, it would fire thousands of rockets at Israel as a last hurrah. Israel in turn has threatened nuclear strikes on the entire middle east. Russia and China are allied with a few countries there, and we are allies with Israel. It wouldn't take much to set off that powderkeg and have the whole world instantly involved.

That was a political move, not a matter of domestic terrorism or a "regional skirmish." When leaders are taken out, it is common for other countries to get involved.

It was an example of how the entire world can get dragged into war because of the complex web of alliances countries are involved in. How a little thing can become a big thing very easily.

Your thinking is backward. Technology is not just weapons and "science" is a far too broad term to apply to weapons technology. Science isn't evil.

I've already stated I didn't think science is evil, nor is that what I was implying. You're avoiding the basic question...

The march of technology is the primary output of science, it is what is shaping our lives and culture. The question of whether it is wise to continue down this path is a valid one. Whether it is weapons, or creating a generation of add addled technology addicts, technology is changing everything about how human beings interact and live, and not necessarily for the better. The point is, with great power comes great responsibility and it doesn't seem like we have what it takes to keep the power technology affords us over the environment, or eachother, under wraps. We're just a few inventions away from potential extinction. Are we not in fact headed for a guaranteed suicide as a race by pursuing this course? If not, why?

No, the source you provided proved that it doesn't slip through the cracks and that the only way an average person can obtain a worthwhile amount of radioactive material is to harvest it in miniscule amounts from everyday objects. Even still, the man did not do what you claimed he did.

He was caught because he had a mini-meltdown in his kitchen and told the authorities about it. It serves to illustrate my point quite nicely.

No. I do not agree with this at all. Inevitable is an awfully pinpointed term. It leaves no room whatsoever for the chaos and unpredictability that are a part of nature itself. While some things are quite ordered in nature, what is inevitable and what isn't on such a grand scale is not. Could is the keyword here and you are ignoring it. The title of this thread is not indicative of musing. It is a statement, one which I disagree with, largely due to its matter of factness.

Inevitability is a word you claimed to be fond of. If you disagree that it isn't inevitable, of if you like, highly likely, then please provide an actual argument as to why.

Again, if major cities are destroyed, it's not unreasonable to say nukes are going to fly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)

Shows how much you know. I was being sarcastic.

So why did you mention the population "problem" twice in a row now? I will venture to you that the problem isn't the amount of people but the inequity of man. We could fit all the people of the world into an area the size of texas giving everyone houses of at least 1000 square feet. We could feed, clothe and vaccinate the entire world on what Europe spends on ice cream every year.

Why would I do that? I'm not a hypothetical batshit looney with a nuke I made in my kitchen. I don't care to talk about abortion with you. You're judgmental and entirely motivated by your faith and what I consider ignorance. I doubt you could manage any turns of phrase I have not borne witness to before.

Can you refute this argument?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

"We" who? Do you think you would escape the euthanasia? Oh, no, dear lucent. It would most certainly be all those baby-hating, puppy boiling atheists who instigate a drastic population reduction. I'm sure you won't be around to decide my fate

Yes I am well aware of that. It's called social darwinism, which is what inspired Hitler.

You don't. I am not sucking up your nutrients from the inside and potentially changing your entire life. You have no power, no control and no say in what women do with their bodies. That makes me happy.

Ahh, you contrast an unborn child to a parasite. Delightful. A woman changes her life when she acts irresponsibly and gets pregnant, then chooses to murder that child for her mistake instead of owning up to her responsibility. Yes you have a choice to do the wrong thing, but our bodies are not our own.