 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) "As immediately as possible" I suppose you could question, but according to the timeline: - 8/6 Bomb #1 - 8/9 Bomb #2 - 8/14 Surrender There was more time inbetween the 2nd bomb and the surrender than between the 1st and 2nd bombs, in fact. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) I actually agree to a large extent that the tactic was to induce fear. That is in fact a legitimate war strategy at some level. The only way to win a war is to win the morale battle. You can't kill every single enemy. This is why a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) There was, in fact, an attempted coup by high-ranking officers once the Emperor's wishes had become known. The problem with Fascist thinking was that it was seen as a struggle of civilizations; Hitler in fact articulated that if the German (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Especially evil? No, or at least, I wouldn't deem it as such. As I've said elsewhere, the fact that it employed fear doesn't necessarily make it immoral, and even if it does, it doesn't mean it's necessarily unjustified. (...) I'm highly in (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Here's another oddball thought: It's likely humanity will eventually cease to exist at some time in the future, anyway, so was it worth imparting such horror on the Japanese population, just to keep humanity going a bit longer? ROSCO (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Was that a serious question? What are the alternative values to weigh against? I see humanity as good for millions of years, actually. We may actually last all the way to the heat death of the universe, we're pretty clever. (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Nah, just an oddball thought. People seemed to be considering "what if"s, and that was my oddball "what if" taken to extremes 8?) (...) We'd have to come up with some sort of practical interstellar travel technique first - the solar system's (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) How do you figure? In part it depends on your definition of "we". Humanity has "stopped evolution" recently, and is poised to "take control of evolution" with genetic engineering of ourselves. I say "we" are what we make ourselves into, but (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) technique (...) When? No-one told me... (...) I don't totally agree. Evolution turned chimps into humans. We definitely don't consider them "humanity" though they may well consider us "chimpity"(tm). At some point, humans will likely evolve (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) Me either! Wow, cool--LUGNET is the apex of evolution! :D (...) *HAHAHA* "Chimpity?" I love it! Oh, yeah, forgot the little ™ (Alt+0665 to make the spiffy extended-char trademark symbol) But, as a matter of point, evolution didn't turn chimps (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Too early to tell for sure but we as a species have in part stopped evolving because we have shut down most of the selection factors (disease, famine, the birth defect effect on reproduction) As for the survival of the race, we have to get (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'm not quite sure I agree that those are the reasons we've put evolution on pause. After all, if a species is able to overcome certain challenges (disease, famine, etc), aren't they *not* selection factors? The birth defect thing and genetic (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) "in part stopped evolving". I don't get the meaning of that. Humanity is either evolving or not - and I disagree that we've made any significant differences in these areas. Oh, maybe a little in the western world... (...) Nah, just more so (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Lets not bring athrax etc into this :) (...) This is an interesting point. It is a generaisation, but in the UK low income families tend to have more kids than higher earners. Many couples (married or otherwsie) decide to have only one or no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) either (...) in (...) Is there a "wrong way"? ROSCO (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Optimization for local conditions can be suboptimal for global. I would hold that humanity's chief survival weapon is cleverness. Anything that selects against cleverness/intelligence/drive (the cited example, for instance) is bad for (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) However, many species manage to survive (& flourish) without cleverness, simply be breeding a lot. My point to Scott was I don't think right & wrong have any relevance to evolution - local populations may evolve in ways which are advantageous (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I would think that most people with at least middling intelligence would tend to agree that decreasing the overall intelligence level of our species is the "wrong way". Do you have a reason to think that decreasing our species intelligence is (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Though admittedly a generalization, this trend in intelligence:breeding rate is based on an evolutionarily insignificant stretch of time. Further, even in the hypothetical example, the judging of intelligence based on academic achievement (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) A couple of eminently debatable assertions. *Read Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" for a perspective on the furphy of IQ testing -- recent editions include a refutation of the premise and methodology that inform "The Bell Curve" c/ race /class. (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) to (...) "wrong (...) That may be so, but I would think that most people who have a middling understanding of evolution would agree that intelligence has little (if any) effect on it. (...) right (...) No. Read the question again. I was (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Except to stop it. Which we are in the process of doing, and which was my original point! ++Lar (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) of (...) tend (...) We may, in the end, cause our own extinction, in which case I guess you could say we're currently in the process of stopping our evolution, but I think it's a pretty big stretch. As I've said before, I think humanity will (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I understood Larry's point differently, in that optimistically we might never go extinct (technology propelling us beyond the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe...), but in terms of biological evolution we're more or less at a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) 2030: designer human v5.0 The baby can change its own nappy. :) Scott A (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Right. Or at least closer. What I'm getting at is that evolution is a natural process that produces changes in organisms in response to changes in environment (including the changes that occur in other organisms) but that we are now choosing, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) to (...) Have you read the novels "Last and First Men" and "Starmaker" by Olaf Stapledon? They deal with exactly those issues but on a grand scale, and are *exceptionally* humbling reads. Highly recommended! Jennifer (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Not a bad point, but it must be stipulated that since humanity is *part* of nature, then the traits we, as agents of nature, elect to favor will survive and be passed on in a manner exactly consistent with evolution. I'm not sure that the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I thought this was an interesting perspective: From the OU ==+== Infant mortality is a thing of the past, major diseases are treatable and natural disasters largely avoidable, so the merciless selective forces of nature are something of an (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I think these points interact in an interesting way. (...) I'm no physiologist, and this is largely based on mediocre SF, but I think it's quite possible that humans will evolve rapidly as a response to low gravity conditions (if that's not a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I think one of the biggest shifts in our species "unnatural evolution" will come when we stop worrying about the effect of zerogee (ZG) on the human body and split into ZG and PlusG branches, where ZGs will have no DESIRE to visit planets and (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) <nit-pick> I think this is totally natural evolution. Our technology is an extension of our phenotype, just culturally expressed rather than genetically, and since it lets us access a new environment it makes biological sense that we adapt to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I'll have to partially disagree. Humankind has done a lot to *lessen" selection pressure on ourselves but we, to my knowledge, have not found a way to eliminate an environmental factor (in the broad sense). However, humans will continue to (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes, the total population outsystem won't really matter - as long as there are a few HUNDRED beings concentrated in one place (to handle rearing of crechebabies), and sufficient genetic stock stockpiled in many different places, we should be (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) "Dead end" has an air of finality that can't be declared with any confidence when speaking of evolution. It may be the case, though I don't think so, that we've created a temporary stall on evolution, but even then, it's not world-wide, and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Macroevolution, yes. Microevolution, no. (which is why switching away from Ciprox is a good idea, hold it in reserve if we can) (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Is Larry a Creationist? 8^) Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Ciprox in particular, but antibiotics in general are overused. But my understanding is that "macroevolution" is a straw-man term coined, or at least embraced, by Creationists. All evolution is microevolution except on the geologic scale, and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Is Larry a Creationist? 8^) Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Ack. I mean the surfacing of traits already in the population (and not newly mutation generated) when I said micro... and the longterm generation/selection of new traits (and speciation) when I said macro. Sorry if that was imprecise. I ain't (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Is Larry a Creationist? 8^) Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Just to clarify. Microevolution is a change in allele frequences of pre-existing variants within a population, whereas mutation is the ultimate source of that variation. Onto Dave's point about the macroevolution being a strawman. I'm pretty (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Is Larry a Creationist? 8^) Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) for an update: someone sent a digital watch (or alarm clock) through the mail and it started beeping for some reason. In other words: bomb scare. -chris (23 years ago, 4-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) God, how I hope you're right! But I'm less optimistic than you. Chris (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't really think it's cause for "optimism" -- in my book the longer it takes before genetic manipulation of humans is commonplace the better! But a lot of these processes are technologically feasible today, which is why I put such a short (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) any) (...) it's (...) That's possible, but doesn't stop evolution within the species. (...) We'll need some fairly large colonies before earth becomes expendable (IMO). (...) "Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Not with technology advancing at the rate it is. You only need a colony large enough to help raise crechebabies in the case of major disasters, and a diverse enough genetic stockpile to avoid having to waste time working around genetic (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Is it not our intelligence which separates from rest of the animals? Is that not the key to our evolution, or do you think it is incidental? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I dispute that. While there will always be people on the far edges of the bell curve no matter what the scale of the curve, I would tend to believe that having that curve shifted UP would increase the chance of our species surviving longer, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) <snappy rejoinder> I think it's got a lot more to do with conscience than brains. It's because we're the smartest/most technological species that we're in a position to wipe ourselves out (see crechebaby thread for "extinction" scenario). (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) of (...) tend (...) bell (...) having (...) longer, (...) the (...) and (...) the (...) right & (...) makes (...) still (...) level (...) I don't agree with this. You're thinking cataclysmic events like a meteorite hit. I think it's more (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, I think the "mechanism" of eveolution is more to do with small genetic changes that may not show any external effect for many generations. And though we've started looking into such things, we're nowhere near being able to "shut them (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) horror (...) Humanity will blossom into many other things that will spread across the universe. It doesn't particularly matter if humanity as we see it now continues. I don't think that bombing Japan enabled the continuation of humanity (at (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
