Science will surely destroy the planet

[Shell B]

By the way, your source talked about a man who "tried" to build a nuclear reactor with a negligible amount of nuclear material.

[lucent]

The internet is full of people being sarcastic and trolling. It is hardly an accurate gauge of the level of "crazy" in this world, though it is a fairly good indicator that people are strange.

Ah, but that is opinion. We have had men and women who were nuts enough to try to off large amounts of people, some of whom succeeded. Not a single one of those people was actually aiming to destroy the world, that I know of.

The scenario is the availability of weapons of mass destruction to anyone. There doesn't even need to be a chain reaction. Let's say we just had a group of 50 people who were willing to carry these weapons into various cities and detonate them simulataneously. When major cities start getting nuked, bombs start flying. If washington DC got hit, you can guarantee nukes would be launched at someone or everyone. There is a viritually inexaustible supply of suicide bombers ready and willing to volunteer for these missions.

Anything can set off a regional skirmish. However, regional skirmishes are rarely global. When they are, militaries are on alert for WMDs. While the potential for WWIII is absolute, the likelihood of it happening because of science is slim to none, in my opinion. It is people you should be worried about. They managed to kill shitloads of them with science back in the day too. Back then, weapons science was torture devices.

World War 1 started because the archduke of austria was assassinated. This was because of the complex web of alliances between the countries involved. It's very easy for something like this to get out of hand and spark global war.

You say it wouldn't happen because of science? It's only science that makes it possible. In our quest to make everything "better" with technology, aren't we just volunatarily putting a noose around our necks? Is there any wisdom in playing with powers we don't understand and can't contain once they're loosed?

Stable enough to launch at another country? A reactor is not a nuke, by they way.

It's proof that these things slip through the cracks and are more probable than you thought. Anyway, what do you think North Korea or Iran is doing in its spare time?

Oh, please. This is turning into a science is evil discussion. Here I was thinking we were just discussing a hypothetical and you launch into talking about science as if it were independently intelligent. Science needs people to do things. Not all people do not think about what technology will do when they develop it. Also, the development of the nuclear bomb was an arms race in one of the most important wars in history. The people who developed it had reason to believe that it didn't matter if it backfired, because another country was doing the same thing at the same time.

I don't think science is evil, but I do think that it will most certainly be used to destroy the planet, if it were possible that is. Just address the question:

"The point is, it could be something very simple. A new invention could create weapons we've never dreamed about. It's inevitable given the march of technology that the destructive capability available to individuals will at some point match the capability available to nations today"

Are you claiming this isn't true?

You did not demonstrate that. Your precise scenario involved a weapon built in someone's home and used to set off a chain reaction. When that happens, we call it domestic terrorism and it does not cause a chain reaction. Unless the person makes it look like a military move on another country or from another country, your chain reaction is not going to happen.

Again, if major cities are destroyed, nukes are going to fly, guaranteed. We almost had world war 3 over the cuban missle crisis. Do you think cooler heads will prevail when millions of people are dead?

Abortion.

I know you're trying to redirect the conversation to your pet topic, but I'll humor you. If you want to murder unborn children, why not just go for broke and shave off a few billion people who aren't doing anything more than using up resources. Why should we keep you around for that matter? How do we evaluate your worth as a human being?

[downbeatplumb]

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Fundies are the most likely source of a nuclear conflict.

That pakistan has a nuclear capability is worrying.

Looking at some of the republican nominees, that america has nukes gets a little concerning.

[Shell B]

The scenario is the availability of weapons of mass destruction to anyone. There doesn't even need to be a chain reaction. Let's say we just had a group of 50 people who were willing to carry these weapons into various cities and detonate them simulataneously. When major cities start getting nuked, bombs start flying. If washington DC got hit, you can guarantee nukes would be launched at someone or everyone. There is a viritually inexaustible supply of suicide bombers ready and willing to volunteer for these missions.

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

World War 1 started because the archduke of austria was assassinated. This was because of the complex web of alliances between the countries involved. It's very easy for something like this to get out of hand and spark global war.

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.

You say it wouldn't happen because of science? It's only science that makes it possible. In our quest to make everything "better" with technology, aren't we just volunatarily putting a noose around our necks? Is there any wisdom in playing with powers we don't understand and can't contain once they're loosed?

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.

It's proof that these things slip through the cracks and are more probable than you thought. Anyway, what do you think North Korea or Iran is doing in its spare time?

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.

I don't think science is evil, but I do think that it will most certainly be used to destroy the planet, if it were possible that is. Just address the question:

I will address the question. However, I insist that you stick to your original scenario if you are going to start ordering me about.

"The point is, it could be something very simple. A new invention could create weapons we've never dreamed about. It's inevitable given the march of technology that the destructive capability available to individuals will at some point match the capability available to nations today"

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.

Are you claiming this isn't true?

Not claiming -- asserting. You are dealing in absolutes and I assume you are not a prophet.

Again, if major cities are destroyed, nukes are going to fly, guaranteed.

Again, you are dealing in absolutes. You are not mentally equipped to make such predictions. I assure you, this isn't a slight against your intellect. None of us can predict such things.

We almost had world war 3 over the cuban missle crisis. Do you think cooler heads will prevail when millions of people are dead?

Cuban is a proper noun. We do not need cooler heads to prevail. If the truth is that it was a domestic terrorist attack, no one has recourse. It is sad and that is it. Now, that is not to say that someone cannot make it look otherwise and cause something to happen on a larger scale, but it is to say that your oversimplified version of it is getting redundant.

I know you're trying to redirect the conversation to your pet topic

Shows how much you know. I was being sarcastic.

but I'll humor you.

*waiting with bated breath*

If you want to murder unborn children

And there it is. Only Christian children and kittens. /sarcasm

why not just go for broke and shave off a few billion people who aren't doing anything more than using up resources.

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.

Why should we keep you around for that matter?

"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.

How do we evaluate your worth as a human being?

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.

[KichigaiNeko]

Yes luce...the world is gonna end and we're all gonna die....

So this supports your faith??

[5thHorseman]

You seem to want us to be simple beings again. Alas too late, you're already there.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wrenches are evil, Isreal, armageddon, that is all.

(nazi nazi nazi)

[Erinome]

but our bodies are not our own.

Speak for your own body!! My body is my own. Who do you suggest owns my body?

As for this ridiculous theory that technology is going to kill us all-

What do you think will motivate this?



My money is on religion.

[kılıç_mehmet]

This is all doomsday stuff...Nothing will destroy this planet, unless some major apocalyptic catastrophe happens and all....