News Stories

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Best for whom?

Countless species we've driven to extinction, perhaps even for ourselves as we'd be eating our natural diet and our minds would be occupied more with survival than all the horrible shit we've done since civilization started. Not that it'd be an ideal world, but at least in my eyes, it would be a better one.

It's a moot point though, because our world can never go back to that mode of operation unless humans go extinct. I don't see any possible scenario where we'd somehow revert to a hunter-gatherer existence, and even if it were possible it would require the world population to shrink drastically, which wouldn't be a good thing. So it's not like I'm advocating we return to the forest or something, just making the idle observation that a primitive life may actually have been better.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

At least until the sun ran out of hydrogen to fuse, entered the red giant stage and sterilized the planet.

Face it, we're better than animals because without us, they're doomed. We're the only species capable of leaving the planet. We're the only hope of every lifeform on this planet after the end of our star's main sequence stage.

I'm skeptical humans will be around when the sun gets to that stage. In fact, I'm inclined to believe we'll be long since extinct. And while we've entered space, and perhaps have the potential to colonize the galaxy, it's still a far way away. We're going to have to find a way to travel faster than light or exploit wormholes, both options currently seeming scientifically impossible. Of course, someday we could pull it off, but I definitely don't see it as a given.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

but good for bear chasing the man chasing the deer.

Humans were still apex predators in our most primitive days. While a bear can take down a man, skilled hunters can take the bear out as well. We've always been at the top of the food chain since the times of Homo Erectus. And apex predators usually do not attack each other unless it's an adult going after a juvenile.

[synaesthetic]

You'll forgive me if I don't agree. My entire purpose for living depends upon technology (and really, so does my physical existence itself), so in your idealized world of cavemen, I'd be completely pointless--and most likely, dead.

So yeah. Gonna have to disagree. I like being alive, and living with crazy awesome technology. It's a fair trade in my opinion. Progress is not painless. And what's the point of existing if we do not progress?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Countless species we've driven to extinction, perhaps even for ourselves as we'd be eating our natural diet and our minds would be occupied more with survival than all the horrible shit we've done since civilization started. Not that it'd be an ideal world, but at least in my eyes, it would be a better one.

Yes, because a meager existence eating nuts and berries you found on the ground, and dying at 35 due to easily preventable illness is so much better than eating foods with processed ingredients, living a safe, comfortable life, with technology that will take us to the stars in the coming centuries.

It's a moot point though, because our world can never go back to that mode of operation unless humans go extinct. I don't see any possible scenario where we'd somehow revert to a hunter-gatherer existence, and even if it were possible it would require the world population to shrink drastically, which wouldn't be a good thing. So it's not like I'm advocating we return to the forest or something, just making the idle observation that a primitive life may actually have been better.

It wasn't. Look at any surviving primitive culture. It's a hard life. Modern society has it better in every respect.

I'm skeptical humans will be around when the sun gets to that stage. In fact, I'm inclined to believe we'll be long since extinct. And while we've entered space, and perhaps have the potential to colonize the galaxy, it's still a far way away. We're going to have to find a way to travel faster than light or exploit wormholes, both options currently seeming scientifically impossible. Of course, someday we could pull it off, but I definitely don't see it as a given.

We do not need ftl to colonize the galaxy. You don't need to go directly from Earth to the other side of the galaxy. First you colonize nearby star systems. Then once civilization is established in them, they colonize systems further out. Repeating that process, an intelligent civilization could colonize the entire galaxy in only a few million years. It might seem a long time, with extinction being a risk before it's complete, but once the civilization is past the second expansion, it'll be established in too many star systems to go extinct, except due to the actions of another, more advanced civilization with more systems under its control.

[Vexx]

Personally, I think we're going to be trapped in our Kuiper Belt playpen for long enough that we'll HAVE to solve some very basic problems before we're going to be able to start slacking about the rest of the galaxy.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Personally, I think we're going to be trapped in our Kuiper Belt playpen for long enough that we'll HAVE to solve some very basic problems before we're going to be able to start slacking about the rest of the galaxy.

I hope the social development can keep pace with the technological development. Otherwise there is a chance that the technology wipes humankind out before it can be used as a means to travel to other stars in our galaxy.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Countless species we've driven to extinction,

Species disappear all the time, even without our intervention. It's sad, but that's life.

perhaps even for ourselves as we'd be eating our natural diet and our minds would be occupied more with survival than all the horrible shit we've done since civilization started. Not that it'd be an ideal world, but at least in my eyes, it would be a better one.

Hey, I like having time for more than subsistence. And as others have pointed out, the dropping life expectancy isn't attractive at all.

It's a moot point though, because our world can never go back to that mode of operation unless humans go extinct. I don't see any possible scenario where we'd somehow revert to a hunter-gatherer existence, and even if it were possible it would require the world population to shrink drastically, which wouldn't be a good thing. So it's not like I'm advocating we return to the forest or something, just making the idle observation that a primitive life may actually have been better.

While it's obviously impractical for all of us to do it, why don't you go live in a forest, see what it's like to be hungry, cold, and dying of infection or disease?

I'm skeptical humans will be around when the sun gets to that stage. In fact, I'm inclined to believe we'll be long since extinct. And while we've entered space, and perhaps have the potential to colonize the galaxy, it's still a far way away. We're going to have to find a way to travel faster than light or exploit wormholes, both options currently seeming scientifically impossible. Of course, someday we could pull it off, but I definitely don't see it as a given.

Maybe, maybe not. But we're still this planet's best shot. It's only shot, in fact, short of evolving another intelligent species after we're gone, which may well have the same problem as us.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I like being alive, and living with crazy awesome technology. It's a fair trade in my opinion. Progress is not painless. And what's the point of existing if we do not progress?

then you'll like what should happen... in 2045 onwards

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...8138-1,00.html

[ganbaru]

Pro-democracy protests sweep Syria, 22 killed
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72N2MC20110408

[Ithekro]

What is going on out there? Are those speculations about needing a new map for the Middle East coming true?(for reference: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=3882)

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

What is going on out there? Are those speculations about needing a new map for the Middle East coming true?(for reference: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=3882)

not really.
what needs to happen is not a restructuring of the map, so much as a shift of thinking.

stop thinking "middle east" and start thinking "Egypt, , Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, etc"
grouping the middle east as if its a single minded entity is the mistake that brought about the stupidity to begin with.
it was the British-French Sykes-Piko agreement that treated the people living there as "Arabs", as if there is no cultural, economic, tribal, and other differences.

individual countries may have their borders change, but it should be taken on a state based, rather then regional, basis.

[SaintessHeart]

I see that the new generation of ME youths to be very extreme - extremely religious, extremely anti-religion, or extremely apathetic (known to the outside world as moderates).

Wondered if the Internet built from oil empires has got anything to do with this.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Here's something interesting.

Glenn Beck ending his daily Fox News show

Somewhere out there, Americans are either booing, crying, celebrating with joy or just going "meh". While the rest of the world is saying: "Glenn who?"

This is a big win. I don't think I can really describe how much of a large impact this is, to people who aren't familiar with Glenn Beck. He's been a strong force for hate, for misinformation, and for nutball conspiracy stories that lead people down to the wrong conclusion.

Getting him off the air was part of the TurnOffFox campaign strategy, that I am a part of. Fox News is watched by a lot of Americans, and consistently tells blatent lies and falsehoods to mislead the American public. If you're from another country, you should care because if the American public is fooled, then it ends up worse for the entire world.

I'm gonna cut and paste the latest e-mail I got from ColorOfChange.org, which explains a bit more:

Spoiler for E-mail:

Our community just won an important and hard-fought victory. After more than 285,000 people spoke out, leading to a loss of over 300 advertisers from his top-rated show, Glenn Beck's program on Fox News Channel will come to an end this year.

This is huge. Beck's record of race-baiting is virtually unsurpassed among mainstream media figures, and Fox News has continued to give him a platform -- until now.

We launched our campaign against Beck in July of 2009 after he topped a week of race-baiting directed at President Obama with the most stunning statement of them all—he called Obama a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture."

Within days we approached Fox News' advertisers, asking them to stop supporting Beck's poisonous statements with their dollars. Nearly 300,000 people signed statements that we presented to advertisers. Thousands of others made phone calls when our staff's calls and member comments weren't enough. Within weeks, dozens of advertisers dropped the show. In the end, more than 300 advertisers decided that Beck was too much of a liability and requested that their commercials not be shown during Beck's program.

In their statement announcing the shift, Fox News trumpeted Beck's ratings success. In reality, Beck's audience and ratings have been on the decline. Fox has also steadily refused to admit the obvious impact that the loss of more than 300 blue chip advertisers has on their bottom line. Beck's only advertisers have been lower-tier brands that could not have earned Fox News as much revenue as the upper-level brands—thus turning a show that should have been a top earner into a financial liability.

Together, we've succeeded in doing something very important. We've helped hammer home the message that deception and race-baiting are not acceptable for a "news" network and that everyday people will hold accountable those who are responsible.

Beck will remain with Fox News Channel as a producer, and we'll be watching for what might come from that. And we'll continue to push back on Fox's race-baiting problem, which of course goes beyond Beck. But today's victory is important: Beck's voice, his incessant conspiracy theories, his dangerous incitement to violence, his casual race-baiting—all of these will be gone from television by year's end. And that's something for which we should all be proud.

We want to thank CREDO, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, and StopBeck—all of whom played critical roles in the effort. But more than anyone, we want to thank YOU, our members, who helped us win this important victory. We couldn't have done it without you.

Remember, ColorOfChange.org is powered by you, our members—your energy and your dollars. Our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. If you can support our work financially, whatever the amount, please click the link below:

http://www.colorofchange.org/donate

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Matt, Natasha and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
April 7th, 2011

Saying this to demonstrate the importance of joining together with others, that sometimes you can make a difference. As long as enough people are indifferent, though, the bigger changes will always escape us. Something like this starts to make me believe in humanity again, heh.

There are other organizations out there fighting for our rights; investigate them and pick at least one, then support it. Spread the word. This ends my PSA, heh.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

You'll forgive me if I don't agree. My entire purpose for living depends upon technology (and really, so does my physical existence itself), so in your idealized world of cavemen, I'd be completely pointless--and most likely, dead.

So yeah. Gonna have to disagree. I like being alive, and living with crazy awesome technology. It's a fair trade in my opinion. Progress is not painless. And what's the point of existing if we do not progress?

You'd hardly be pointless. Your ideas about technology are shaped by your environment's conditioning. Who knows - maybe in that world you'd be a very important person to your tribe. But I agree, it is a fair trade. I don't think this caveman world of mine would be perfect, or even all that much better than the modern world. If anything it would only be better in some ways, and worse in others. I've subjectively quantified that life as better, but of course that's just my analysis and your different one is entirely valid as well.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Yes, because a meager existence eating nuts and berries you found on the ground, and dying at 35 due to easily preventable illness is so much better than eating foods with processed ingredients, living a safe, comfortable life, with technology that will take us to the stars in the coming centuries.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your tonality through print, and if so I apologize, but there's no need to be pretentious. I qualified my post by saying it's simply my opinion, and I don't expect many to agree. Dying at 35 due to easily preventable illness was less likely than you may think. The myth of the caveman struggling to survive was perpetuated by 19th century scientists and has now been largely discredited. While by no means an easy existence, hunter gatherers were adept at their lifestyle and were on average quite successful and lived longer than 35. The life expectancy was simply lower due to lack of medical assistance during childbirth. And I agree modern medical care, culture, and technology are great things. But I see it as a trade off, and I'm leaning towards primitive life as a better one.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

We do not need ftl to colonize the galaxy. You don't need to go directly from Earth to the other side of the galaxy. First you colonize nearby star systems. Then once civilization is established in them, they colonize systems further out. Repeating that process, an intelligent civilization could colonize the entire galaxy in only a few million years. It might seem a long time, with extinction being a risk before it's complete, but once the civilization is past the second expansion, it'll be established in too many star systems to go extinct, except due to the actions of another, more advanced civilization with more systems under its control.

Even so, you still assume many forms of technology to come into existence for that to happen, as well as humanity itself to exist a remarkably long time for an animal species. It could happen, but I'll remain a skeptic about it.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Species disappear all the time, even without our intervention. It's sad, but that's life.

True, but when you ask better for whom, that's a pretty suitable response. The inevitability of extinction doesn't make it justified.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Hey, I like having time for more than subsistence. And as others have pointed out, the dropping life expectancy isn't attractive at all.

I do too. But I can't help but wonder if constantly being occupied by our natural activity, hunting, gathering, surviving, might be a healthier life in a mental sense. Life expectancy would mainly drop from death in childbirth, and you've got no argument from me that children dying is a bad thing, but if you managed to live through that your prospects weren't as bad you might think. Humans have always been successful predators.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

While it's obviously impractical for all of us to do it, why don't you go live in a forest, see what it's like to be hungry, cold, and dying of infection or disease?

I do have escapist fantasies sometimes, but that's a bit of a red herring. Humans' natural lifestyle was to subsist on traditional foods with a group of people that passed down their knowledge for generations and worked together to survive. Me living in the forest, while closer than living in a house or apartment, is hardly comparable to that original lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Maybe, maybe not. But we're still this planet's best shot. It's only shot, in fact, short of evolving another intelligent species after we're gone, which may well have the same problem as us.

No disagreement from me there. That fact doesn't quell my skepticism, however.

Anyways I could discuss a book's worth of pages on this subject with you guys, it really interests me, but don't want to clog up the thread. So I'll stop here.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

This is a big win. I don't think I can really describe how much of a large impact this is, to people who aren't familiar with Glenn Beck. He's been a strong force for hate, for misinformation, and for nutball conspiracy stories that lead people down to the wrong conclusion.

Getting him off the air was part of the TurnOffFox campaign strategy, that I am a part of. Fox News is watched by a lot of Americans, and consistently tells blatent lies and falsehoods to mislead the American public. If you're from another country, you should care because if the American public is fooled, then it ends up worse for the entire world.

I'm gonna cut and paste the latest e-mail I got from ColorOfChange.org, which explains a bit more:

Spoiler for E-mail:

Our community just won an important and hard-fought victory. After more than 285,000 people spoke out, leading to a loss of over 300 advertisers from his top-rated show, Glenn Beck's program on Fox News Channel will come to an end this year.

This is huge. Beck's record of race-baiting is virtually unsurpassed among mainstream media figures, and Fox News has continued to give him a platform -- until now.

We launched our campaign against Beck in July of 2009 after he topped a week of race-baiting directed at President Obama with the most stunning statement of them all—he called Obama a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture."

Within days we approached Fox News' advertisers, asking them to stop supporting Beck's poisonous statements with their dollars. Nearly 300,000 people signed statements that we presented to advertisers. Thousands of others made phone calls when our staff's calls and member comments weren't enough. Within weeks, dozens of advertisers dropped the show. In the end, more than 300 advertisers decided that Beck was too much of a liability and requested that their commercials not be shown during Beck's program.

In their statement announcing the shift, Fox News trumpeted Beck's ratings success. In reality, Beck's audience and ratings have been on the decline. Fox has also steadily refused to admit the obvious impact that the loss of more than 300 blue chip advertisers has on their bottom line. Beck's only advertisers have been lower-tier brands that could not have earned Fox News as much revenue as the upper-level brands—thus turning a show that should have been a top earner into a financial liability.

Together, we've succeeded in doing something very important. We've helped hammer home the message that deception and race-baiting are not acceptable for a "news" network and that everyday people will hold accountable those who are responsible.

Beck will remain with Fox News Channel as a producer, and we'll be watching for what might come from that. And we'll continue to push back on Fox's race-baiting problem, which of course goes beyond Beck. But today's victory is important: Beck's voice, his incessant conspiracy theories, his dangerous incitement to violence, his casual race-baiting—all of these will be gone from television by year's end. And that's something for which we should all be proud.

We want to thank CREDO, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, and StopBeck—all of whom played critical roles in the effort. But more than anyone, we want to thank YOU, our members, who helped us win this important victory. We couldn't have done it without you.

Remember, ColorOfChange.org is powered by you, our members—your energy and your dollars. Our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. If you can support our work financially, whatever the amount, please click the link below:

http://www.colorofchange.org/donate

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Matt, Natasha and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
April 7th, 2011

Saying this to demonstrate the importance of joining together with others, that sometimes you can make a difference. As long as enough people are indifferent, though, the bigger changes will always escape us. Something like this starts to make me believe in humanity again, heh.

There are other organizations out there fighting for our rights; investigate them and pick at least one, then support it. Spread the word. This ends my PSA, heh.

Uh...I hate to burst your bubble Kaijo, and be a party-pooper, but that's not why Glenn Beck is leaving Fox News.

He's leaving to form his own channel (whether cable or online only is as of yet unknown), because it will garner him more money without the oversight of the Fox News channel's upper management which (according to Beck himself) Mr. Beck has never gotten along with (with the exception of Roger Ailes).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/bu...beck.html?_r=2

More money and a larger audience, with more control of his own content, is why Glenn Beck is leaving Fox.
It's the same reason that Dave Ramsey left the Fox Business channel a few years ago.
It is my understanding that Fox is a very hard company to work for.

[Kaijo]

Eh, that's only one possibility. The real reasons are that he's seen a 30% drop in viewership, and there are a host of advertising companies leaving his show. Right or left, it's all about money, so Fox decided to end it. He's still a producer for Fox and will remain there, but we'll see.

And of course, the rumor mill has it that he's started to believe his own claptrap and is becoming unraveled, heh.

[GundamFan0083]

I know, but I can't believe that Beck actually believes some of the crap he spouts.
He's an entertainer for the conservative religous types.
Plus it's no mystery that Beck has been competing with Alex Jones for the alternative news audience.
The problem for Beck is even the Alex Jones crowd views him as an asshat.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I hope the social development can keep pace with the technological development. Otherwise there is a chance that the technology wipes humankind out before it can be used as a means to travel to other stars in our galaxy.

Not if we bomb ourselves back to the stone age before we can can develop weapons that can result in extinction level warfare.


Quick! Someone take a piss on the Chinese Embassy while wearing an American and Taiwanese flag!

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I know, but I can't believe that Beck actually believes some of the crap he spouts.
He's an entertainer for the conservative religous types.
Plus it's no mystery that Beck has been competing with Alex Jones for the alternative news audience.
The problem for Beck is even the Alex Jones crowd views him as an asshat.

Oh good, maybe they'll compete each other out of existence .

Yes, he is an entertainer, and he does it all for the money. The crazier, the more extreme, the better.

[GundamFan0083]

I don't have a problem with Alex Jones, he's not part of the corporate media AFAIK, and the corporate media hates him.
Anybody the major corporations hate is okay in my book.

Glenn Beck on the other hand is a corporate media puppet.
That's why I think Beck will crash and burn at some point soon.
I don't think he's authentic in his message.
In other words he doesn't believe what he preaches.

Alex Jones on the other hand, has been around since the mid 1990s and is authentic in his message (he believes in what he preaches).
I don't see Jones fizzling out the way I think Beck will.

[SaintessHeart]

China says U.S. human rights outcry is interference

As the article said. Though I wonder if China would be complaining about their brain drain in the future, like post-revolution Iran in the 1980s and 1990s due to a secular regime.

Same shit it happening to Singapore now. Heck, all of my former cliquemates are now finishing their uni-stint this year and are planning on staying overseas instead of coming back.