|
|
 | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| Unfortunately, there isn't any way we can live in "harmony" with mother nature. If we really wanted to preserve Earth, then we'd have to give up our current lifestyles. Yup, no more SUV's, no more fertilizer (nitrogen), no more nuclear powerplants, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| (...) uh...that's not what I meant. Though reading my post again, I see how you were mislead (unless of course you knew what I really and decided to simply play with me a bit). Let's see...actually, never mind. I was sort of trying to make a point (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| I understand some of the benefits that cloning technology could have. Unfortunately, I'm a bit leary (paranoid? Biased?) that the technology seems to be nearing success at the same time that population control is becoming a serious issue...the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Why would that be great? (...) We wouldn't have battle fields. We would have the ugliest guerilla war in history. And pistols would be awfully important because they're easier to conceal when you're approaching a small group of cops. (...) We (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| (...) It does. I find it amusing when people react that way. (...) I think it depends on what you mean by 'well.' Our conservatives have become much more concerned with the domestic agenda than in the recent past. Bush mirrors that concern. I think (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
