io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 12:22 AM
Fri Dec 18
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/16/09
Of ninety percent.
Current global population 6,790 million.
Future global population? ... either 8,000 million or 800 million.
In 15 years? ... flip a coin.
In your lifetime? ... it depends on how long you live.
12/16/09
Bigger.
So, like today, only worse. Or better, if you like that.
-Kle.
12/16/09
12/16/09
I'll be damned if you'll be hearing Mal speak 1700 different dialects of Indian.
12/16/09
12/16/09
But, just in case we don't, there's always the soylent green solution.
12/16/09
Mmmm. Crunchy human goodness.
12/16/09
*clears throat*
Quality not quantity.
Thank you for your time and attention.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Oh, wait, that's right. I forgot I'm not ruler of the world yet. Well, one day, one day...
Joking apart, I really think that religion, in its various forms, is the cause of a lot of suffering in human history, and a slow-down of our progress. And all for what? The belief in some silly superstitious bs.
12/16/09
I think that given the chance, and human nature, people are going to find a higher power to believe in. This is evidenced by how religion has come from many distinct cultures in all areas of the world. They may have fundamental differences, but all the indepedent civilizations tended to come up with religous explanations for the unknown. I am not to the point where I think science will solve all the mysteries, so religion will exist.
12/16/09
I respect your opinion, but mine is different.
In my opinion, religion is illogical by definition and a product of ignorance. And since it's done more harm than good throughout human history, I really see no reason to tolerate it at all outside of one's home.
Despite of what I said in my previous post, I'm not of the opinion that religious people should be exterminated or moved to another planet. I am, however, of the opinion that people should be educated. As a result of education, religious belief should disappear on its own.
Still, if people want to stay religious, that's fine by me as long as their religious practices are confined to their homes and not to public or political venues.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
I do think that people should not have any kind of religion forced on them -- they should be allowed to consider all the options and implications and come to their own conclusions. But it's naive to think that with enough education, religion will simply cease to matter -- because of the human condition, religion will always have a role in society, however illogical it may be. Whether that role is a positive or a negative one depends on how a society is set up, which is why I'm all for democracy, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.
12/16/09
"There are some questions (what happens when we die, why do we exist) that science can't answer."
I'm not so sure that science cannot answer those questions. Regardless, can religion? I don't think so. Of the two, my bets are on science.
"The uncertainty surrounding those questions can be frightening enough that some people choose to take solace in religion -- and I would never deny them that solace, or think any less of them for it."
Fine by me, provided that they don't make their religion an excuse for all the terrible things that humanity has suffered in their name.
"I'm all for democracy, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state."
So am I. I'm also all for freedom from religion, for those who don't need any kind of sugar-pill solace for the human condition.
Democracy, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state are all great ideals to aspire to but I'll believe we've made some progress towards achieving those ideals when I see an American president who is not afraid of saying that he or she is an atheist, and when churches and other religious organizations are required to pay taxes like everyone else.
12/16/09
An atheist regime saying that people are free to worship in their own homes so long as they don't go public with it is no better than a catholic regime requiring everyone to believe something publicly.
Perhaps a better solution is that folks get over their differences, quit being aggravated that people say things they don't like, and learn that the public forum is a place for all views, no matter how stupid you think they are.
Besides, you assume that religion itself is a falsehood as old as the theory that the earth is flat. And while it may be a popular opinion that "science has disproved God," the truth is that this is a logically impossible statement. You can, at best, imply that there are more rational explanations for why things happen than "God did it." And interpretation matters. So to believe that the people whose interpretations differ from your own should "keep to their homes" is the exact same mentality that caused so many religion-related oppressions of thought.
12/16/09
"And you just presented your viewpoint as canon and used it to justify the oppression of others' beliefs to benefit your own."
I don't think I did anything of the sort you're suggesting. Moreover, I think you're taking my words too literally. I believe my posts have clarified exactly what I mean but you have decided to stick to only certain parts, and to take them out of context.
"An atheist regime saying that people are free to worship in their own homes so long as they don't go public with it is no better than a catholic regime requiring everyone to believe something publicly."
Case in point. Where exactly have I seriously proposed an atheist regime?
"Perhaps a better solution is that folks get over their differences, quit being aggravated that people say things they don't like,"
You can't possibly be so naive as to believe that such solution is possible.
"learn that the public forum is a place for all views, no matter how stupid you think they are."
I actually subscribe to that, hence my jokes.
"you assume that religion itself is a falsehood as old as the theory that the earth is flat."
Isn't it, though? Do you believe in Zeus? Why not believe in Santa Claus? At least the post office delivers letters sent to him. I have yet to see someone actually deliver prays to god.
"And while it may be a popular opinion that "science has disproved God," the truth is that this is a logically impossible statement."
I never said that science has disproved god, so please don't make it sound as if I did. Having said that, the very notion of a god is a logical impossibility. If you subscribe to logical reasoning, I can give you several logical arguments that show that the existence of any kind of religious god, creator of the universe, is illogical.
"You can, at best, imply that there are more rational explanations for why things happen than "God did it."
And that's more than good enough. "God did it" has absolutely no predictive power, so it's totally useless as an explanation.
"So to believe that the people whose interpretations differ from your own should "keep to their homes" is the exact same mentality that caused so many religion-related oppressions of thought."
Again, you're taking my words too literally.
12/16/09
I don't really care to get into the actual "Does God exist?" argument, because frankly, internet arguments like that always end up devolving into pointless tossing about of various evidences and nitpicking at words leading to endless clarification and never going anywhere. However, I take issue with the idea that you cannot be logical and still believe in a God at the same time. Evolution and creation (purely as examples) are not mutually exclusive ideas. They overlap in implementation (usually due to the misguided Christian belief that if you don't see the biblical creation account as 6 literal days, then you don't trust God and that's bad), but the question of how the earth came into being does not answer the question of why and for what purpose it came into being.
That's where religion (or the lack thereof) comes in. Atheism states that there is no higher power and we simply are here and that's the end. Most religions state that there is a higher power that created us on purpose and for a purpose. Both come with their own set of morals. Neither is necessarily independent of logical thought. The idea that atheism is the rational mindset and religion is the fools' morality is preemptively exclusive, divisive, and ultimately unhelpful in reconciling any ideas. That's what I'm trying to get at. You'll forgive my hyperbole as I realize you don't actually want to forcibly drive religion out. I'm trying to get at the mindset. The idea that "people who don't think like I do are not smart."
And no, I don't actually believe that the entire world will actually get over their differences. But I also think it's something worth trying for. And I've had more than a few discussions online with people I fundamentally disagreed where we end up reaching a satisfactory conclusion, even if we did still part ways logically. That, to me, is encouraging.
12/16/09
Oh, I don't have a problem tolerating that view. I just think it's not a logical view to subscribe to. More importantly, I think it's not a view that should be allowed to be used in helping people make political, economical, medical, technological, and perhaps even social decisions. And that's what I meant by "keeping it at home." Put in a less elegant way, I don't care what people believe in, religion-wise, as long as their beliefs do not hinder progress (and, by progress, I don't mean merely scientific or technological progress).
Now, it's been argued that this particular point of view that I'm expressing isn't fair because people should be allowed to use their moral imperatives when making decisions such as those I've listed, the implication being that moral imperatives cannot exist without religion, a view that I strongly disagree with.
"you're also inviting that this view should be treated with ridicule. You have implied that it's impossible to both be rational and have a belief in a creator."
Guilty as charged. Yes, I do believe it is impossible to reconcile rationality with the belief in a religious creator. Note that it's not impossible for the human mind to hold contradictory information, but that's not what is at issue here. I'm talking about subscribing to logic as a model of reasoning and, simultaneously, subscribe to the existence of a creator according to religious ideas.
"I don't really care to get into the actual "Does God exist?" argument, because frankly, internet arguments like that always end up devolving into pointless tossing about of various evidences and nitpicking at words leading to endless clarification and never going anywhere."
I tend to agree with that assessment but, in my experience, there have been exceptions.
"However, I take issue with the idea that you cannot be logical and still believe in a God at the same time."
Fair enough. I will give you a counter-example.
Let's assume that there exists a god who created this universe. If that's the case, where was he prior to creating the universe? Clearly not in this universe, since not even god can exist in a region that hasn't been created yet. So, let's assume that he existed in some kind of meta-universe.
The question now is, who created that meta-universe? Clearly not the god who created our universe, since the region one exists in must exist prior to it being occupied. So, if the god who created our universe didn't create the meta-universe he exists in, then who create it?
Unless you're willing to admit the possibility that the meta-universe was not created by any entity but, instead, came to exist by means of natural events (in which case, why not admit that possibility for our own universe?), you have to accept that the meta-universe was created by another god. In fact, a god more powerful than the god that created our universe, since that other god created the universe where our god exists in.
Now, I won't bore you with a repetition of the argument, as I think you can see by yourself that this line of reasoning leads to an infinite recursion. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that either (a) our universe was not created by a god or (b) there are an infinite number of hierarchically-included universes, each created by a different god, more powerful than its successor.
Let me say that in a different way: the argument above shows that either there is no god or there are an infinite number of gods. A single god is a logical inconsistency. Moreover, if you accept that there are an infinite number of gods, then the god who created our universe is the weakest one in the hierarchy. Not the kind of conclusion that religious people would want to subscribe to, I think.
The above is a purely logical argument. I contend that anyone who subscribes to logic cannot refute the argument above.
"Evolution and creation (purely as examples) are not mutually exclusive ideas."
Again, we're in disagreement. Evolution builds complex entities from simpler ones. A creator, by necessity, is more complicated than that which he creates, which leads to the question of who created the creator? Let me put it this way: if we're so complex that we cannot have evolved from simpler forms, thereby necessitating a creator, how is it that an even more complex creator can exist without having himself been created? Yet again, one reaches a logical contradiction.
(By the way, the typical response of "god wasn't created because he exists, and has existed, forever" is a cop-out because it doesn't explain where he existed in prior to creating our universe, not to mention that it makes an assumption about the nature of time which is in contradiction with current scientific undertanding)
"the question of how the earth came into being does not answer the question of why and for what purpose it came into being."
Why should there have been a reason for the Earth's creation? The Earth is a speck of dust in the universe. It's no more special than any grain of sand is on any beach. Back a few centuries ago, the argument that we are in some way special might have made some sense but today, with dozens of planets being discovered in other solar systems every month, it's at least arrogant to think that we're special.
"Atheism states that there is no higher power and we simply are here and that's the end."
And, with that, we manage to continue living without any hang-ups. We don't ascribe metaphysical reasons to tornadoes or tsunamis, for example. We see the world as it is and we do the best we can with what he have, knowing that we won't get a second chance.
"Most religions state that there is a higher power that created us on purpose and for a purpose."
But that higher power is never accessible to scrutiny, nor are those purposes made clear. Moreover, different religions claim different sets of purposes. They can't all be correct at the same time, but they can all be wrong at the same time.
"The idea that atheism is the rational mindset and religion is the fools' morality is preemptively exclusive, divisive, and ultimately unhelpful in reconciling any ideas."
Perhaps, but here's the dividing line: how many atheist groups have you seen that pilot planes into buildings or bomb newspaper offices or bomb abortion clinics? I'm not saying that atheists are saints. I'm sure that there are horrible people who are atheists, just as there are religious people who are good people. But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to show evidence of any kind of organized atheist group that promotes violence the way many religious groups do.
"The idea that "people who don't think like I do are not smart."
I happen to think that religious people (which is a subset of the people who don't think like I do) are ignorant, and I'm using that word in its purest sense, not in any pejorative or insulting sense. They're ignorant of the fact that there is no need for the "god hypothesis", not to explain the world, nor to come up with a moral code that leads to good living. That's why I believe that education will eventually eradicate religion (not through any intentional directed effort to eradicate it but as a result of people becoming less ignorant, in the sense above). Incidentally, being smart has nothing to do with not being ignorant.
"And no, I don't actually believe that the entire world will actually get over their differences. But I also think it's something worth trying for."
I also think it's something worth trying for, but I don't associate the chances of that happening with any kind of religious belief. No one needs to believe in a higher power to want to contribute in a positive way for the betterment of humanity.
I want to reiterate that, despite our differences in opinion, I respect that you have yours and that you're entitled to it. I also want to say that I enjoy discussions like this one, even if I disagree with the people I'm chatting with.
12/16/09
Okay, so admittedly they no longer exist, but if the Soviet government under Stalin doesn't count...
12/16/09
The point being that there is no "atheist bible" that promotes violence the way that the bible and the qur'an do.
12/16/09
You can't just ignore the fact that two largest government-ordered mass killings in human history were performed by governments with stated positions of enforced Atheism (the Soviet and Maoist governments, incidentally), because it is inconvenient to your Big Ideas that mostly seem like knee-jerk reactions based on limited personal experience.
I am not saying that these facts/statistics mean that Atheists are immoral or violent people. To do so would be to make the same egregious error you appear to be making.
12/16/09
"Couldn't someone just turn it around and say that many of the religious violences commited weren't done by religious people who promoted violence, but by violent or sociopathic individuals who happened to have been religious?"
Someone could, but that view would not hold much water considering that both the bible and the qu'ran (especially the qu'ran) actively invite followers to commit acts of violence.
"You can't just ignore the fact that two largest government-ordered mass killings in human history were performed by governments with stated positions of enforced Atheism (the Soviet and Maoist governments, incidentally),"
I'm not ignoring the fact you're alluding to. I was merely pointing out that correlation does not imply causation without a strong motivator.
In the case of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, what evidence do we have that their mass killings were motivated by their atheist views? On the other hand, look at the Crusades, any religious war or, more recently, at 9/11 and other acts by extremist muslims. The evidence that their acts of violence were motivated by their religious beliefs is absolutely clear and indisputable.
"because it is inconvenient to your Big Ideas that mostly seem like knee-jerk reactions based on limited personal experience."
My "Big Ideas" aren't mine alone and you don't know me to draw the conclusion that my experience is limited. And if my reaction seems knee-jerk, it's because I've grown tired of having to defend being an atheist against people who, for the most part, adhere to completely illogical arguments and silly ideas. (Not necessarily the case here)
"To do so would be to make the same egregious error you appear to be making. "
What exactly is the egregious error I appear to be making? To draw a causation from the scriptures to violence committed by their followers? Are you really going to contest that causation?
12/16/09
The problem I find with the infinite god argument is that it assumes we understand how life outside of this universe exists. We know, for example, that in this world we have the laws of thermodynamics that state (among other things) that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It may be converted, moved, dispersed, or collected but never created nor destroyed. And yet, here it is. This is based, purely on our own observations, experiments, and analysis from within this physical world. However, can our assessment of what goes on within this world be trusted to govern what happens outside in the meta-universe you're talking about any more than our own internal fears and insecurities can be trusted to be indicative of how others view us? You don't have to look any further than one's own brain to find an example of internal bias.
While I'm no expert in the field, I love the idea of more-than-3 dimensional space. And 4D space is what really brought this concept home for me. As Carl Sagan so eloquently explained it (as he usually does. Gotta love that man), adding a fourth dimension to space gives us an axis that's at a 90 degree angle to height, width, and depth at the same time. It's at a right angle in a direction we cannot see, comprehend or wrap our heads around. It can be mathematically described, even some "shadows" of such constructs made in the 3D world, but it can not be truly observed.
When you're talking about hypothesizing about the nature of the universe beyond the physical universe, I see it that way. Perhaps I romanticize the 4D concept a bit, but it's not hard to understand that if you leave the physical universe and everything in it that new rules may apply. I don't pretend to know what those are. I simply refuse to accept thought experiments as canon on the subject. Such ideas are intellectually dishonest. I accept that there are many explanations for some things often described as miracles, and that natural disasters are products of nature (hence the name). Ascribing "God did it" to things for a lack of an explanation is lazy thinking. But I also believe the same laziness applies when we're saying that whatever existed before the universe must have been created also. We are so incapable of even describing such a universe that we usually either default to an all-black or all-white void. And yet, colors themselves are only an interpretation of things that exist. When light waves and retinas don't exist, what does the universe even look like?
I think it's easy to use a though experiments to try to explain how recursive creation is a logical fallacy. I think it's an entirely different matter to say, through the process of observation and experiment, that whatever existed before the Big Bang actually was something that needed to be created. If the meta-universe before us was nothing, how do you create nothing? And if the idea is that God existed in that space, how can we say, having no idea what it was actually like, that this is impossible or recursive?
The classical understanding of most major religion's god is that the being is one outside of time and space. If you begin to factor in a physical (or metaphysical) dimension beyond the three physical dimensions (plus time) that we have, things get screwy. For lack of a better word. And quite simply put: I can't explain what it's like in that meta-universe. Which is why I'm hesitant to subscribe to the "recursive god" argument.
Of course, all I have are questions to this argument. Questions don't prove anything, answers do. But for the time being, at least, you're asking me to subscribe to a logical belief about a concept that is literally beyond the possibility of human comprehension or observation based on little more than a series of rhetorical questions. My questions may be frustrating (they can be to me, anyway), but they're no less speculative and inconclusive than this argument.
I think I'm gonna leave this here, as I have an event to attend tonight (RiffTrax live! Woohoo!), but it was good sparring with you, sir.
12/16/09
"The problem I find with the infinite god argument is that it assumes we understand how life outside of this universe exists. [...]"
The argument I provided does not require any knowledge whatsoever of any physical laws in those meta-universes. It is based on only two ideas:
(a) an entity (any entity) cannot exist in a region (of anything, we don't need to specify if it's space, time, or something entirely different) prior to that region's existence. Thus, our god cannot exist in our universe prior to our universe coming to exist. Of course, he can enter and leave it afterwards, at will. Hence, our god must have existed somewhere else at the time he created our universe. Again, we don't need to specify anything whatsoever about that other place.
(b) an entity (any entity) cannot create the region (whatever it is) that it inhabits because the region has to exist prior to the entity coming to inhabit it. Hence, our god cannot have created the region he inhabited.
Ergo, some other entity must have created the region our god inhabited. Now, recurse.
Those two ideas are simple logical statements.
"We know, for example, that in this world we have the laws of thermodynamics that state (among other things) that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It may be converted, moved, dispersed, or collected but never created nor destroyed. And yet, here it is."
It might surprise you to know that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this "primordial" violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Moreover, energy can in fact be created, ie, energy conservation can be violated, under certain conditions.
Most people don't truly understand what energy is. It turns out that energy is the quantity which is conserved when the system under observation is invariant under translations in time. This is a conclusion derived from a very general theorem, called Noether's theorem. I could explain the details here, but I won't because I don't want to get too technical here. Suffice it to say that the universe is not actually invariant under translations in time because it had a beginning (the Big Bang). Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that energy would not be conserved at the moment of the Big Bang. The only reason why energy appears to be conserved in the universe today is that we are so very far away from the moment when the universe started.
As for the second statement I made above, about energy creation, quantum mechanics allows a temporary violation of energy conservation. Although that violation can only be temporary, it can have lasting effects.
"However, can our assessment of what goes on within this world be trusted to govern what happens outside in the meta-universe you're talking about"
As I said before, we don't need to know any details whatsoever about those meta-universes. However, to answer your question, the simplest assumptions in science tend to be the correct ones, and the simplest assumption in this case is that these universes wouldn't be much different than ours. In any case, that's irrelevant for the argument of the "infinite number of gods."
"While I'm no expert in the field, I love the idea of more-than-3 dimensional space."
We all already understand a "space" of more than 3 dimensions. We all live in a so-called manifold that has 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, and we all understand (in an intuitive sense) the passage of time.
"When you're talking about hypothesizing about the nature of the universe beyond the physical universe, I see it that way. [...] Such ideas are intellectually dishonest."
Why are they intellectually dishonest? All I was doing is using logical reasoning, nothing else. Moreover, thought experiments of this nature are common in science and many extremely important results and discoveries came about precisely because their discoverers engaged in such activities. Einstein's special theory of relativity was born out of Einstein's thought experiments about the nature of light, space, and time, to give just one example.
"Ascribing "God did it" to things for a lack of an explanation is lazy thinking. But I also believe the same laziness applies when we're saying that whatever existed before the universe must have been created also."
Wait, I don't get it. You're saying that it's ok to think that whatever existed before our universe did not have to be created and, yet, you're not willing to accept the possibility that our own universe did not have to be created? Why this double-standard? If whatever existed before our universe could have arisen by means other than creation by an entity, then it's fair to accept that same possibility for our own universe as well.
"I think it's easy to use a though experiments to try to explain how recursive creation is a logical fallacy. I think it's an entirely different matter to say, through the process of observation and experiment, that whatever existed before the Big Bang actually was something that needed to be created. If the meta-universe before us was nothing, how do you create nothing? And if the idea is that God existed in that space, how can we say, having no idea what it was actually like, that this is impossible or recursive?"
I have to say that the above is very confusing. You seem to be objecting to the idea of a thought experiment. As I pointed out, that is a common and very fruitful approach in science. Moreover, I already said that the thought experiment in question requires the most minimal of assumptions, besides logic. It seems to me that, in the paragraph above, you're appealing to the "god of gaps" idea, namely, that what we can't observe, measure, or otherwise address through scientific means must necessarily be the realm of god. That's a weak argument that's been refuted in many forms already, elsewhere.
"The classical understanding of most major religion's god is that the being is one outside of time and space."
The argument I gave doesn't require the specification of the nature of the region where these gods live. Space, time, water, air, whatever. It doesn't matter.
"If you begin to factor in a physical (or metaphysical) dimension beyond the three physical dimensions (plus time) that we have, things get screwy. For lack of a better word. And quite simply put: I can't explain what it's like in that meta-universe. Which is why I'm hesitant to subscribe to the "recursive god" argument."
Shouldn't the fact that "bringing in some logical and scientific argumentation makes things get screwy" indicate that the whole concept of god is weak at best? Forgive me for making an assumption about you, but it seems to me that you're hesitant to subscribe to the recursive god argument because it severely shakes your beliefs.
"you're asking me to subscribe to a logical belief about a concept that is literally beyond the possibility of human comprehension or observation based on little more than a series of rhetorical questions."
Beyond human comprehension? I hardly think so. The argument is simple and very clean, with no ad-hoc assumptions. And I certainly don't think that the questions I raised are rhetorical.
"My questions may be frustrating (they can be to me, anyway), but they're no less speculative and inconclusive than this argument."
You're saying that the argument is speculative, inconclusive, based on rhetorical questions, a mere thought experiment, beyond human comprehension, and not based on any measurements or observations. I cannot disagree more and I'm sorry to say but I think you're appealing to such a response because the argument is really shaking the ground of your beliefs and you find yourself without a solid counter-argument.
"it was good sparring with you, sir."
Likewise.
12/16/09
Your tone in the early part of this 'exchange' is incredibly dickish, and closed minded, it's a pity you don't realise it, because undoubtably you will end up persecuting someone for holding a different opinion to your own...
There is little difference between an intolerrant athiest and an intolerant theist...
I'm an athiest btw
12/16/09
Faith is the province of the individual.
Foisting is the function of religion.
And ne'er the twain shall meet, so it seems.
12/17/09
"hmmmm even joking about execution...?"
Yes, I was joking. If you can't see the difference between that and those who actually do persecute people for having a different opinion and do execute them and do stone them for no reason, then you need to open your eyes.
12/17/09
Its all catchup after making such stupid jokes... and many a thing are said in jest.... imagine if an ignorant theist made that joke, would him just saying it was a joke really set things straight???
Are you too correct in wisdom? find it tough to admit you were wrong to make such a joke? maybe apologise?
It would go a long way to helping me read all your rebuttals, but as it stands, I don't have that much respect...
but im just some online commenter, so why should u?
12/17/09
why should u care?
12/17/09
For someone who professes tolerance, your attitude is quite hypocritical.
In your first post, you called me a closed-mind dick and you suggested that I will someday persecute people for disagreeing with me. And all of that without knowing the first thing about me.
So, maybe I'm not the one who should apologize.
I take from the fact that your posts aren't automatically promoted that you're somewhat new around here.
Perhaps if you had been here a bit longer, you'd have found out that I'm known to joke a lot. That in no way, shape, or form necessarily implies that I agree with the jokes I make.
And the fact that you're so hung up on what I said in jest only makes me want to reiterate the point I made earlier: if you can't see the difference between a joke and the real thing, then you really need to lighten up.
12:20 AM
And I know a joke, but just because its a joke doesnt excuse it... and if u think it does... you ARE a dick!
And I couldnt give a toss about being new... ive kept on io9 for a long time, yet never feel the need to comment, but ur attitude is so DICKISH, i felt the need... but there u go!
12/16/09
12/16/09
Sad to think that we once had classrooms full of future presidents, scientists, and astronauts.
12/16/09
Those of us who were hoping Obama would magically get us back there in his first year are having our hopes crushed, and aren't likely to be feeling way better after his first term, but it's a process, and we all need to get involved if it's ever going to happen. Otherwise, maybe we can be India's call center.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Perhaps 15 years in the future seems too recent to me to be considered sufficiently "futuristic". *shrugs*
[en.wikipedia.org]
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
"Long Pork rinds-coming soon to a store near you from Solent Green. A company of people for people."
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
If not then these numbers are too optimistic and the population slowdowns will happen sooner.
12/16/09
There's also the effect that as standard of living rises, birth rate tends to drop.
I also wonder about the long-term environmental effects on fertility. (ObSFnal Content: CHILDREN OF MEN.)
I got interested in this because of a U.N. population projection that was published some years ago. Unfortunately since then they've retracted some of the results due to admitted statistical error. This makes me a little suspicious of the data cited here, since the flawed U.N. study also used the year 2050 as a "tipping point" for world population growth (or decline).
Similarly, I wonder what China's "one child per family" policy will lead to when it becomes a nation led by only-children.
(I'm an only child myself, since as is the custom of my species, I slew and consumed my litter mates shortly after hatching. I also unwittingly played a role in helping a young Chinese couple circumvent this policy.)
12/16/09
After reading and translating the statistic-speak, it seems they do, but there's a lot of fudge factors though.
12/16/09
As for only-children... if they act like the majority of first-born Asian* brats, er, kids I know, hooboy...
*I know all too well, seeing my first born cousins and nephews turn into assholes as by custom/tradition Asian parents tend to spoil the shit out of the first born. I am a first born Asian male, but I never acted like one which is why my sister actually tolerates me.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/11/09
"futurism" is "this might happen".
"science fiction" is "if this happens, this will be the consequences".
"fantasy" is "this will never happen, but what fun anyway".
None of them are "this will happen", and any attempt to do so even in the short term pretty much sucks at it.
12/12/09
'' 'futurism' is 'this might happen.' "
Nah.
Futurism is "This might happen, and you should pay me huge money to tell you that, because I'm a giant con-man. If you aren't looking for a con-man, that guy at the bus stop can make stuff up just as well as me, for free."
Science fiction and fantasy are sold as entertainment, and thus have a vastly more ethical business model.
-Kle.
12/12/09