- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by tomtom232Isn't that by definition selfish?
[b]If humanity did not develop agriculture, and every other advance that comes from living in civilisation
and not in tiny tribes, we would/will not develop the technology to leave this tiny death trap of a rock
we live on, and would at some, not to distant point, go extinct.
I don't really care as long as we don't go extinct while I'm alive.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by josephwThe paradox is that as you increase the efficiency of the technology the resource consumption goes up instead of down as you might expect.
Why is it a paradox?
It's common sense. Look at the corresponding increase in population with the increase of technology over the past 150 years. Technology isn't the problem. It's people.
I'll leave it hang there.
It is not a paradox in the sense of a self contradicting logical statement,
Or something like the grandfather paradox.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOK, I guess you win. Congrats.
Ok, you have made an actual argument as to why you think your right.
This is great because rather than just claim you are wrong I can actually make a stab at why.
Which allows for an actual debate rather than a mud slinging match.
You make an observation (not a new one) that throughout history as technology has advanced, so has consumption.
The p ...[text shortened]...
Do you have any further arguments in favour, or any response to my rebuttal?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettI wasn't trying to 'win' I was trying to debate the issue.
OK, I guess you win. Congrats.
You're not wrong in stating that we have issues that need dealing with.
I was disagreeing with why we have the issues, and what the solution might be.
Have you genuinely changed your mind, or have you simply got bored?
If you have simply given up on wanting to debate the issue I would rather know that then
be told I 'won'. I dislike being patronised.
If however you have changed you're mind then, great (and I could be in shock), I would be fascinated
by what convinced you of your original position and what convinced you it was wrong.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettWell that's honest at least.
That would be option no. 2.
I don't accept your argument. You don't accept mine. You can only beat that dead horse for so long.
You weren't making an argument, you were making assertions.
You present one bit of reasoning which I shoot down and you give up.
And to cap it off you patronise me by telling me I 'won' simply because you couldn't be
bothered to back your position up with reason.
If you genuinely believe what you say, you should be able (and willing) to back your
position up with reason.
I am disappointed that all you seem to have done is swallowed someone else's idea whole,
without understanding it.
And now regurgitate it like religious doctrine with no reason or backing.
Any idea worth holding should stand up to rigourus questioning.
If in future we find ourselves on either side of a debate, please don't patronise me again.
If you are not prepared to actually debate the issue with reason and evidence say so.
I am deeply disappointed.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAye, Aye, Cap'n!
Well that's honest at least.
You weren't making an argument, you were making assertions.
You present one bit of reasoning which I shoot down and you give up.
And to cap it off you patronise me by telling me I 'won' simply because you couldn't be
bothered to back your position up with reason.
If you genuinely believe what you say, you shou ...[text shortened]... o actually debate the issue with reason and evidence say so.
I am deeply disappointed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettWell what else did you expect?
Aye, Aye, Cap'n!
You say "I don't accept your argument and you don't accept mine"
The aim is not to just 'accept' peoples arguments, but to evaluate them via reasoning and evidence.
Why should I just agree with you?
Surely you should have to justify your positions, before you should expect anyone to agree they are valid?
I didn't accept your arguments because you never justified them and I could see counter arguments.
If you had produced a well put together argument with supporting evidence that backed you position up
and dealt with my counter points I would have changed my mind.
Instead you simply kept restating your position in more and more hostile tones.
Finally and begrudgingly produced some justification in a most patronising "this is self evident I don't
know why I have to say this" tone.
I immediately poke holes in those justifications using evidence and reason and you just give up.
This is very intellectually dishonest. (and I dislike using that word now given dasa's abuse of it but it fits)
You go onto a forum for debating, pose an interesting argument and position that attracts people willing
and interested to debate it and then proceed to try to preach to them, before finally just giving up when
you find they don't just buy your arguments on spec.
Why should you expect anything else but disappointment and frustration from those you strung along
expecting a debate only to find nothing there?
And why should we pay any attention to you ever again?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettThat's not answering the question.
You're certainly free to start ignoring me any time.
I appreciate you have developed a dislike of me and my views.
However if your only going to debate with people who already like
and agree with you what's the point?
And I was talking generally.
As you just demonstrated you wont debate properly, why should anyone pay you any attention?
What's in it for them if all your going to do is preach at them?
Originally posted by googlefudgeDislike you? This is far more entertaining than our previous discussion. Patronizing people who stomp their feet and demand to not be patronized is always amusing.
That's not answering the question.
I appreciate you have developed a dislike of me and my views.
However if your only going to debate with people who already like
and agree with you what's the point?
And I was talking generally.
As you just demonstrated you wont debate properly, why should anyone pay you any attention?
What's in it for them if all your going to do is preach at them?
As for why anyone should pay any attention to me, the answer is simple. My posts are just too gosh darn entertaining compared to the rest of the sludge that gets posted on this forum. You may want to ignore me, but you'll be back. Where else can you hear such fine preachin'?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettI see, so you find patronising people more amusing and interesting than actually debating a substantive issue.
Dislike you? This is far more entertaining than our previous discussion. Patronizing people who stomp their feet and demand to not be patronized is always amusing.
As for why anyone should pay any attention to me, the answer is simple. My posts are just too gosh darn entertaining compared to the rest of the sludge that gets posted on this forum. You may want to ignore me, but you'll be back. Where else can you hear such fine preachin'?
Good to know.
Goodbye.
Originally posted by rwingettThe worst mistake in human history is for false science and false religion to masquerade as keepers of the the truth.
http://anthropology.lbcc.edu/handoutsdocs/mistake.pdf
This is a five page article by Jared Diamond, author of books such as [b]Guns, Germs, and Steel, and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, which some of you may be familiar with. In it he puts forward the theory that agriculture was the worst mistake in the history of th ...[text shortened]... to hear it from someone a little more conversant with the facts than I. Anyway, I recommend it.[/b]