Scientific American Calls For World Government

PaulConventionWV said:
Face it. The only solution is to make our world better for ourselves, and the rest will come. Interplanetary travel is a pipe dream. It may be possible, but it's pointless. This is the only world that was made suitable for human life. Any assertion that the planet is somehow in danger is either speculation or fearmongering by an interested party. Do you know what I mean by "interested?"
Click to expand...

Nobody believes the planet is in danger, many believe either the ecosystem is in danger or the environment may become less suitable for living. If this IS the only planet you have, you better be careful not to ruin the only ecosystem you get from it.
 
We have local government, state government, federal governemnt, now they want world governemnt. Layer upon layer of waste and reduancy. The power whores will argue that world government should inherit the power of all others; I would say get rid of it all, right down to the local level, and then stamp it out. If the day ever comes, may we take up the role of over zelouse garden weeders.
 
PaulConventionWV said:
I was being sarcastic, Sherlock.

By the way, morality doesn't take care of itself. If you think we just have to know someone's intentions and we can always figure out whether they were doing the right thing, you are fooling yourself. Unless you follow some absolute moral authority (I have said this time and time again) you cannot determine what is right or wrong. Just because you know the truth, it doesn't mean you can always figure out what's right or wrong. I'm sure you can think of a million cases where the ethics of a certain action were in question. Morality isn't something you can just "feel." Morality comes with a person's worldview. If you believe we are all the god of our own universe, then there is no absolute morality. It is subjective and each individual must decide for himself what he thinks is right and wrong. If there are no lasting consequences (think after death), then there is absolutely no reason for any one person to follow the moral code that you happen to hold. It makes the law into triviality. You are absolutely fooling yourself if you think you can just come to an absolute moral conclusion that is binding on everyone just because you sat around and thought about what seemed right to you. Anyone can do this and come to way different conclusions, and there is no reason for you to think yours is the right one of you are just using your own reason and logic to come up with it. Logic and reason cannot determine what is right and wrong. Neither can truth.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how you determine what's right and wrong?

Do you read the bible? (Other men's thoughts on morality)

Or do you pray to god? (Talk to yourself)
 
awake said:
We have local government, state government, federal governemnt, now they want world governemnt. Layer upon layer of waste and reduancy. The power whores will argue that world government should inherit the power of all others; I would say get rid of it all, right down to the local level, and then stamp it out. If the day ever comes, may we take up the role of over zelouse garden weeders.
Click to expand...

the problem with that is, you don't have climate divided and isolated the same way states and local municipalities are. Acid rain doesn't stop in China just because only Chinese are producing acid. So nobody would be stupid enough to act alone or first, unless somebody else agrees not to undo their efforts. This is why "cap and trade" is a joke. If the US stopped all industrial production starting this moment, it'll only tell the rest of the country there's opportunity to do what we just gave up. China's one child policy only affects their local male/female balance, but since Africa didn't agree to such a policy, they're free to have all the children they want while Americans cheerleading with the pro-life chant. The same is true with industrial production and pollution.
 
Cap and Trade had nothing to do with Acid Rain. It was a credit exchange program to trade carbon credits. It was a BS scam.

The rest of your post is BS banter.

Phil said:
Computers costed sagans (billions and billions, 1 sagan = 4 billion) of dollars to create?
Click to expand...

At the time of their initial invention, yes, they did. It would not seem like it, because of Inflation. Which BTW is also the reason your other argument exists. Everything is too expense, because of Inflation.
 
Last edited:
Phil said:
I'd hate to say it but the Scientific American is for the most part correct. There has to be the some kind of larger form of government to stave off a global catastrophe, and eventually to settle on other worlds. There can still be separate countries with there own laws, but there must be some type of global, or even multi-planetary government.
Click to expand...

You and they are confusing the range and domain of the organization.

Remember math class? "Range" is the set of values that go into a function. "Domain" is the set of values created by a function.

To "defend the globe" - either the climate or from asteroids or whatever global issue you can think of, you indeed need an institution that works with a domain of "the whole world".

That doesn't mean that we need to force everyone in the world to support this institution. A non-universal range can produce a universal domain. Indeed, if we assume that everyone must support a single global force, we are likely to get an institution that fails to protect the globe due to internal dissonance and defections.
 
Phil said:
Nope, just logic.
Click to expand...

But your logic must first start with the assumption that evolution is true. Your logic follows from this assumption to say that, if life evolved here, it must have evolved on other planets given that there IS a chance that life can evolve, and therefore, given the vastness of the universe, there must be life elsewhere because a very large number of possibilities must yield at least one actuality. However, your logic fails in the fact that it assumes life evolved from nothing with no intelligent design.

You don't use logic. You make assumptions and then use only the logic that suits your theory. Hell, logic could tell you that there is no chance that life could even evolve on its own, but you must leave that fact out of the equation in order to even consider the idea that "advanced" life exists elsewhere. That's why Carl Sagan is there. He is there to reconfirm this bias in your mind to shield you from real thinking under the guise of superior logic despite all evidence to the contrary. You are fooling yourself. Your mantra of logic is just that, a mantra. It sickens me when people can make such brash claims and then act like nobody can question them. This is the mindset of the authoritarian scientific community that serves the interests of the state. Why don't you come down off your high horse and use real logic for once.
 
We need big daddy government to protect us from the evil weather, and anyone who disagrees is a kook, anti-science, anti-progress bigoted Holocaust denier.
 
VoluntaryAmerican said:
How did I misrepresent his postion?

I am making a self standing statement that does not refrence back to his.

I've noticed you have a bad habit of playing word games and not actually debating the issues.
Click to expand...

Debating the issues is all I do. Word games to you must mean the points I make and the language I used is just too complicated for you to understand, so you dismiss it. I know you can do it if you try.

If you were making a self-standing statement, it was irrelevant. You said:

It's perfectly possible to be an atheist, not believe in global warming, believe in evolution... and not want world government.
Click to expand...

...implying that he had suggested you must want world government if you believe in science as a worldview. You also implied that evolution is a part of science, which I resent.
 
VoluntaryAmerican said:
I'm curious how you determine what's right and wrong?

Do you read the bible? (Other men's thoughts on morality)

Or do you pray to god? (Talk to yourself)
Click to expand...

Suit yourself, but if we are truly just animals and the gods of our own universes, there is no objective morality. You can believe what you want, but don't act like it's consistent for you to insist that others follow your belief system just because you seem to think it's the best way to live. Logic cannot determine morality. It must come from an absolute source and cannot be derived from the minds of men.
 
PaulConventionWV said:
No, I think Sagan is an expert propagandist that likes the fact that he holds the authority to make all the guesses. How does he hold this authority? By creating an environment in which he holds many followers by playing to their interests and denying the existence of God. Only then can he use their allegiance to create all these pseudo-facts such as "10 advanced civilizations."
Click to expand...

Oh dear god...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anti Federalist
Scientific American Magazine Calls for Federal Homeschooling Regulations
Replies
2
Views
369
Snowball
Snowball
J
HHS Secretary Kennedy Declares War on Deadly mRNA Vaccines, Fires FDA "Architect" of "Operation Warp Speed" Dr. Peter Marks. Deep State Strikes RFK
Replies
9
Views
154
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
How Did American Capitalism Mutate Into American Corporatism?
Replies
4
Views
632
Matt4Liberty
M
PAF
Selling War: How Raytheon and Boeing Fund the Push for NATO’s Nuclear Expansion
Replies
1
Views
456
PAF
PAF
J
Hitler Just Pardoned Josef Mengele, Fauci Gets Away With Mass Murder
Replies
3
Views
681
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
G
Back
Top