Civilization predates recorded history, as the roots of civilization are usually assumed to be the discovery and spread of agriculture, about 11,000 years ago. We've enjoyed a rather steady rythm of progress ever since. I'd hardly call that "passing". And while nuclear warfare can most certainly set us back several hundred years (provided mankind is not outright annihilated) it is just not too likely. Fear of what the future may bring is no reason to halt or slow progress down, either.

 

Hardly steady. Modern society largely began with the Scientific Revolution right about 400 years ago. Before that, human society, at least in the West, had been stagnant for thousands of years, and might've actually regressed if we count the Greco-Roman period as a time of relative enlightenment.

 

Man should never fear the future, but it makes sense to actually sit down and look at the future before continuing with the status quo. In less than fifty years oil will disappear as a viable source of energy. Meanwhile, global warming is taking a toll on the climate. We ignore the signs of the future at our own risk.

 

Yeah, yeah. And gravity isn't the reason why stuff falls down. It's Earth's mass that causes that effect. The point is that warfare has always been the most demanding factor for human creativity. War creates the greatest necessities, as failure to put up with those necessities means death.

 

Sure, but that only works if war actually threatened the lives of the population at large. Modern warfare, being often one-sided, is not of the sort. And with apocalyptic war, there's always a chance that humanity won't survive to tell the tale. What does not kill you might make you stronger, but only if it doesn't kill you.

 

The next greatest challenge for mankind is a dwindling energy source. Necessity hasn't quite hit yet, but it will soon enough.

Edited June 8, 200619 yr by Azarkon

Hardly steady.  Modern society largely began with the Scientific Revolution right about 400 years ago.  Before that, human society, at least in the West, had been stagnant for thousands of years, and might've actually regressed if we count the Greco-Roman period as a time of relative enlightenment.

Notice the "rather" as opposed to "absolutely" in my original statement. The Middle Ages lasted for less than a thousand years, at most. At any rate, that period can only be considered a regression in Europe, as the Arab culture, for instance, flourished during that time. So, yeah, a rather steady rythm of progress.

 

Sure, but that only works if war actually threatened the lives of the population at large.  Modern warfare, being often one-sided, is not of the sort.  And with apocalyptic war, there's always a chance that humanity won't survive to tell the tale.  What does not kill you might make you stronger, but only if it doesn't kill you.

Up until WWII, that was actually the case. And ever since, military spending in R&D has been quite sizable due to the US' need to keep a technological edge. Most of the technologies invented for military use end up being converted in a way or another for civilian use.

 

And yeah, I already conceded that the risk of total annihilation due to nuclear war exists, but there is also the risk that an asteroid will wipe all life from the face of the Earth. It's just no excuse not to go forward.

Edited June 8, 200619 yr by 213374U

I think the asteroid mass extinction would be a greater risk since it has already happened twice before.

Well, 65 million years ago there weren't creatures that knew how to split atoms.

Well prior tot he first one there might have been. Of course any ruins of that civilization, if there was any, would more than likely be perserved in the Antartic ice.

Why would it be in the Antarctic, and not somewhere else?

Yeah, how about, Area 51?

Conspiracy!!!

Um... The first mass extinction asteroid, the one that struck about 250 million years ago and probably caused the Permian-Triassic extinctions, smashed into the super continent Gondwana which separated Australia from Antartica.

 

On second thought, maybe not.

It's in the human nature to concentrate one to different social groups with similar interest and defend them to any cost, even by eradicating your enemy. What numberman is trying to say, is that the Geneva convention is a ideal goal for human kind to progress beyond its barbaric heritage. But in the long run, as long as we have the "Us and Them"-attitude, civilizations only progress by warfare(political, cultural, monetary or military).

 

- "The Horror"

So, what we need to do is remove the Us Versus Them mentality and come to terms that we are really just one race of people on a tiny insignificant mudball of a planet.

So, what we need to do is remove the Us Versus Them mentality and come to terms that we are really just one race of people on a tiny insignificant mudball of a planet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, Bill Hicks(RIP) was quite a fan of the idea, but look where it got him, died of stomach-cancer by the age of 33

 

On a serious note, many people wish for that, but the big boys (goverments, enterprises and what not) + the general public doesn't want it all. Man is too complex (or stupid) for those ideas, it's still the old "we where here first", "Our religion is the way, and everybody should convert", "Our race/culture is superior to yours" and other geopolitical spheres of interest, which are mostly concentrated on who has the best natural resources and technology.

 

Luckily, the US is the superpower right now, atleast there you can theoretically change the overal international policy every four years. Still better than the other theocratic and totalitarian states out there.

Edited June 8, 200619 yr by Meshugger

Bill Hicks:

 

There's nothing wrong with the Geneva convention when it is properly applied. The key point, boys and girls is that it ONLY applies to signatories. We don't HAVE to use it in action against states who haven't either. Moreover, if people like terrorists were believed and were treated as combatants (as they always say they are) then they could be shot instantly on capture for being out of uniform.

Unless being outo f uniform is their uniform.

The Geneva Convention could perhaps use some updating. In my view, we should make it explicit that all the protections that applied to uniformed soldiers (back in the days when that was how wars were fought) now need to apply to non-uniformed combatants. I understand that others will take an opposing view, but better to argue this out in the open than have governments rewriting or reinterpreting it differently to suit themselves all the time. Once the UN has agreed a universal definition of a terrorist (this should happen pretty soon), we could create a new convention on how terrorists should be treated.

 

I doubt that the 'intelligence' or whatever the US government has extracted from its prisoners by torture or not-quite-torture outweighs the damage done to the US' reputation - and thus power - by Abu Graib and the other incidents of abuse or murder by the US military. In the long run, the US military would be wiser to present a clear, coherent message on the humane treatment of prisoners to its soldiers.

A soldier is a soldier, regardless he is wearing a uniform or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, we should follow the Geneva Convention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A soldier is a soldier, regardless he is wearing a uniform or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, i think you need to actually read the geneva convention.

 

you're going to have a hard time reconciling these two statements.

 

taks

uh, i think you need to actually read the geneva convention. 

 

you're going to have a hard time reconciling these two statements.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your point?

... That you should try to keep one ego state in control of your keyboard at one time ...?