The De-evolution of human kind

I think i read we have not drasticaly changed in any significant way in 12 thousand years.

 

^ we've just gotten far better at abusing the world, and thus ourselves...either directly through war, environmental destruction, or other such evils, or indirectly through chemicals we make and release, which poison us.

I don't think anything about man has changed at all, we're just much more powerful and far reaching than ever before. In fact, the whole problem is that we haven't changed, we're still short-sighted, ignorant and selfish.

 

Personaly i think the nutrition arguement could be contested, GM has saved millions of lives all over the world .. i could not hope to fully express what i think so i will just give a few of my 'old thoughts'

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13482&highlight=norman



Ethical consumerism should be about using our purchasing power to make the world a better place. Instead, it is characterised by three almost religious convictions: that multinationals are inherently bad; that the "natural" and organic are inherently superior; and that science and technology are not to be trusted. Irrational prejudice against multinationals is connected to incoherent opposition to globalisation. Anti-globalisation campaigners seem blind to the irony that it was precisely the increased interconnectedness of peoples and trade characteristic of globalisation that allowed their worldwide opposition movement to flourish.


http://money.guardian.co.uk/ethicalmoney/story/0,1356,1284800,00.html

I am a vegeterian, my dad says the meat industry and meat in general has got better over the last couple of years , he went back to eating meat.. not very scientific and i aint believing him

Every decade people say 30 is the new 20 40 is the new 30 etc etc .. i think we are getting more out of life and having wider and stronger/longer bonds with the people around us.. The more time you have the less i think you realy want to die.. 'medical advancement overated' I would challenge you to go into a Hospital or a research lab within a Hospital or university and and look through there 'historical records' and see the quantum/paradigm leaps in advancement in the last couple of hundred years..

Imho it was the miniscule risk that was the reluctance to 'fix it' .

You have to recognise the 'dangers' first people went mad making hats because of the mercury (mad hatter) when it was recognised to do harm it was stopped. One person haveing a adverse reaction to something does not 'prove ' anything . I think it takes about a decade or so for any meaningful data to be analysed.

If every person in the world had the same viewpoint/morality and respect for each other and we did not have petty wars over religeon territory etc etc then we would 'all get on' The fact that there are madmen/women (pick your poison who you think is mad).. This pettyness stagnates our societies imho.

There are still 'craftsmen' .. could you imagine the the chaos if we all were on horse and buggy.. what about global markets and trade.. we would all be prety screwed financialy if we lived 'like the old daYS'

Some things in life are bad,They can really make you mad,Other things just make you swear and curse.When you're chewing on life's gristleDon't grumble, give a whistle.And this'll help things turn out for the best.And....Always look on the bright side of life, (whistle)Always look on the bright side of life, (whistle)If life seems jolly rotten,There's something you've forgotten,And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.When you're feeling in the dumps,Don't be silly chumps.Just purse your lips and whistle, that's the thing.And...Always look on the bright side of life. (whistle)Come on...

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15739502-13762,00.html

US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.


Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.

The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and have no heartbeat or brain activity.

But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the dogs are brought back to life with an electric shock.

Plans to test the technique on humans should be realised within a year, according to the Safar Centre..........this should be enough to save lives such as battlefield casualties and victims of stabbings or gunshot wounds, who have suffered huge blood loss.



During the procedure blood is replaced with saline solution at a few degrees above zero. The dogs' body temperature drops to only 7C, compared with the usual 37C, inducing a state of hypothermia before death.

Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved.

Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery. The dogs are brought back to life by returning the blood to their bodies,giving them 100 per cent oxygen and applying electric shocks to restart their hearts.

Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage. "The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to prevent death in a certain segment of those using this technology," said one US battlefield doctor.

I would imagine the point is to save lives.

 

There is no doubt that GM has done much to aid countries in need with food that would not grow otherwise. The massive crop failures in various parts of the world should tell everyone about global warming though. I grow my own veggies, and I'll tell you from 1st hand experience, what you grow organically ain't nothing like you buy in the store. The taste is richer and stronger and it seems like you don't need to eat as much to feel satisfied. That being said, organic veggies are pretty particular and require a lot of attention. You can't just spray them and forget about them. They need a lot of attention, therefore they're not profitable...or they didn't used to be. The current trend puts organics in great demand and they bring much higher prices that genetic veggies.

Ethical consumerism is in short supply because it requires responsibility, and in some cases forfiture of convienience. I don't think that multinationals are inherantly bad, just that they are extreemly short sighted, and slaves to the almighty dollar. When your main focus is making money, and not the welfare of society then you're on the wrong path. There are some major corporations that put ethics and sociatal responsibility first, but they are definately not the norm!

We are getting more out of life, we understand the value in nutrition and exercise. This is one area that I can say that we've advanced. That's not to say that society as a whole participates in the new health standard. You still have heart attacks in phenomenal rates compared to say even 50 years ago. What is the point of spending 200,000 on a heart transplant when all you have to do is alter your lifestyle and eat better food & exercise. There should be little, or no heart disease if we used the knowlege that we have. Lung, liver, respritory etc... for that matter. I agree we've learned to fix a lot of health problems. The point is that the health problems that we have learned to fix are conditions that are avoidable through prevention and responsibility. It's not All the fault of large corporations, we have to be responsible to.


Isn't ANY risk too big a risk when you compare human health with potential profit?



In some cases, it takes more than a decade to see negative effects. The problem now is that negative effects are being reported on a consistant basis and are being ignored because of the massive cost involved in restructuring the food and drink packaging. It won't change until the lawsuits equal or surpass the cost of maintaining the status quo.


Could you imagine the clear air if we were all driving electric or hydrogen cars? Did you know that the technology for electric cars is over a hundred years old? Did you know that several major patents for electric automobiles were purchased by oil companies or subsidiaries of oil companies and "burried" not developing the technology, but effectively blocking others from developing it? We would continue to exist quite nicely without global markets or trade on the scale that we have today. In fact, 200 years ago, we had more global free trade than we have today. In the old days personal finance wasn't the prime focus for life that it is today.


Thanks for offering your perspective, even though I don't see everything the same way that you do, it helps me to keep clarifying just exactly how I do see things.
[/QUOTE]

 

Its easily argued that humankind is producing less air and water pollution per capita that 100 years ago (with the possible exception of greenhouse gases). Its also easily argued that we are using our land more efficiently that we were 100 years ago. Furthermore, global population growth is leveling out and global population is expected to actually DECREASE this century. So combine the fact that cleaner technologies provide for less eco-damage/person, with the fact that population growth is easing, and there is room for optimism.

Because humankind is improving itself, the SKY IS NOT FALLING!

BTW, anyone who loses sleep at night should read about the research done by Bruce Ames. His work proves that people eat more natural toxins than they do artificial ones

 

cryptoman:"Isn't ANY risk too big a risk when you compare human health with potential profit?"


Profits (wealth production) have positive effects on human health.

 

Where the hell did you hear that? I've been reading the exact opposite. Can you provide proof/a source?

 

I not trying to answer if the population is decreasing. I did fleetingly look into it though . If you don't agree with any of it, at least have a chuckle at the site (if you have not read it before ?. I found it quite intresting, something to take on board)

THE BOMB THAT FIZZLED

Ehrlich's hilariously wrong "population bomb"

During the last three decades, the issue of overpopulation - or perceived overpopulation - has been discussed in various capacities. The primary instigators of these discussions have been the radical environmentalists, the radical animal rights activists, and certain wealthy elites in our Western society. All of these groups more or less assert that human beings are destroying the planet. There are too many of us, they say. Hence, we must utilize “family planning” (read: abortion, contraception, sterilization), even in a coercive manner, to limit the number of people born into the world.

As a result of this elitist, anti-life mentality, also known as the “contraceptive mentality,” several countries, including the U.S., are steeped in what the late Pope John Paul II called a culture of death. In third world countries, abortion, contraception and sterilization seemingly abound; yet the most basic needs of food, clean water and medicine are often lacking. Why is this so?

It would seem that international organizations such as the United Nations and Planned Parenthood are more interested in reducing the population of those less fortunate than in working to promote authentic economic development in developing countries. The main questions involving this matter, I submit, are these: Is the world indeed overpopulated? What can be done to promote economic development and responsible parenthood in a way that is morally acceptable to virtually everyone?

The assertion that the world is overpopulated is essentially a myth. In a January 29, 2005 address given by Cesare Bonivento, Roman Catholic bishop of Papua New Guinea, at the Family Life International Symposium held in Papua New Guinea, Bishop Bonivento cited a 2003 report issued by the United Nations Population Division warning that “future fertility levels in most developing countries will likely fall below 2.1 children per woman, the level needed to ensure the long-term replacement of the population. By 2050, the UN document says, three out of every four countries in the less developed regions will be experiencing below-replacement fertility, with all developed countries far below replacement level as well.”

Bishop Bonivento continued: “The deeper reductions in fertility will have as a consequence a faster aging of the population of developing countries, and this aging will stress social security systems. Globally, the number of older persons (60 years or over) will nearly triple, increasing from 606 million in 2000 to nearly 1.9 billion by 2050.” Interestingly, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released a report in 2004 predicting “that the world's population will increase by almost 40% by 2050, to 8.9 billion inhabitants” and that “such a demographic increase is an obstacle for development and for the environment.”

Bishop Bonivento gave the following observation for the aforementioned contradictory report: “Why such an evidently contradictory evaluation? Because the warnings of the other UN agencies and of the demographers are jeopardizing UNFPA's effort to curb the population with any means, including legal abortion. UNFPA is the agency supporting the Chinese one-child policy, which includes forced abortion for women having a second child.”

Now, what can be done to foster economic development in third world countries? According to Dr. Brian Clowes, author and researcher for Human Life International, such a program would: “provide basic health care and prenatal care to women and children, thereby dramatically reducing infant mortality rates; build road systems and bridges to remote areas, thus promoting regional economic self-sufficiency; help break down artificial economic barriers, such as family-run utility monopolies and overly complicated procedures for securing permits in order to start small businesses, thereby stimulating healthy competition; improve agricultural production with rural electrification, mechanization and adequate grain storage, thereby improving nutrition; provide clean running water to villages, reducing endemic diseases; and provide basic education to those who are not receiving it.”

Finally, the widespread promotion of natural family planning, also known as natural fertility regulation, is vital, as it is “morally acceptable to all religions and cultures.”

Source

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_antigreen_archive.html

 

are we not Men?!, we are DEVO, are we NOT Men?!, we are DEVO!!