dimreepr

Utopia is the clue here, sure take steps towards zero but who cares, as long as it's not the final countdown, bc tomorrow we'll be faced with an even bigger stick and it doesn't matter who wields it, good or evil it's all the same in the end... 😉 For instance, are you sure Utopia is a good guy with a perfect defence system?

If anything it's the other way round, if for pop-science we say philosophy; science just wants to get on with it, without all those peskie journos asking personal question's, it only gets heated when god is used as an excuse to not try and understand (edit, gods, something else Dawkins was confused by 🙄); if you make an honest mistake the scientists are quite tolerant and happy to explain why. You, my friend is treading a fine line, as did I when I joined this forum and sometimes continue to do so, the difference between now and then is, I learned to listen to these fine people, before I argued with them. I'd hate to see you banned.

The 'only time' it was an effective weapon was in Japan; now, it's just a weapon of revenge, whomsoever pulled the trigger first; it's built into the contract, no one can afford to be seen too flinch. If you're facing who you think is a psycho, would you put down your gun? The best we can achieve is for all side's to take out one bullet at a time, the entropy of collateral damage, we'll just be left with one (probably a secret 10) each.

Such is the meaning of life...

Indeed, the answer is a bigger stick is difficult to define if enough of you continue to wield it...

They had a go with Dune and the children of dune, but it seems Marvel is more conducive to the screen...

What are you trying to prove here? That 'we' don't fully understand is trivially demonstrable, that you think you do is trivially denied; if you think that equal's a stalemate, you need to learn chess...

Again you're being to literal, at a certain level of complexity even science becomes a sort of mythology for most of us, as in a famous example from Richard Feynman, he explains why a mirror reflects us the way it does. The poker reference I made earlier, is analogous also; every player gets their card's equally, it's the card's themselves that are not equal, the player's choice is whether or not to play the hand dealt, or wait for the next and learn about the other player's, those with little experience play every hand; the aggressive player will go all in on the first hand and win, bc the experienced player knows to fold unfavorable card's. That player think's he's learned something valuable, every hand can win; what he doesn't understand is, why he never wins a tournament. We 'all' start our learning journey with a little mythology, bc we need it as base on which to build our understanding. No one wins every hand, even the tournament champ...

Way to miss the point, I don't need a book/teacher is essentially a blnd faith; or did you spontaneously learn everything?

I talked about belief in general and the varying degrees of belief, specifically our need for some sort of bible to bolster our ideology; blind faith is a different conversation. In poker, the nuts represent a winning hand, it doesn't matter what you believe... 😉

We will eat until the food runs out, the planet doesn't need to eat, so it will survive us; the end of the world will happen much later than we are late... 😉

Yes, it literally does mean that, in this 'rapist bible' context and the in the context of my post. My point exactly! What exactly is your point? Please elaborate. The way I view that passage is that he's (someone) simply pointing out that we're all human beings and as such we're all capable of human behaviours, good and bad; "there but for the grace of god go I"

OK, so you don't believe in any book or teaching? Let's toss this out to the crowd: I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it

I'm a poker player, with the nuts, so I'm all in...

I'm a realist, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always win... But let's get this lot out... 😉

Don't worry, the karma police have got him in their sights, I bet they're already twisting the metaphoric knife... 😉 BTW I don't think his followers are imbecilic, he's appealing to confused people because of very specious argument's, much like the screens we're all constantly glued to, so both literal and metaphor. We 'all' have a bible that we believe, for many different reason's (including rapists), some are just better at interrogating what was meant when it was written and rapists just want to believe.

He also tried to pawn his mugshot suit, in little squares; it took a lot of shop visits to fence that swag... I wonder if/when people will get the possibility that his business model isn't sustainable/much good...

That's an interesting philosophical question, do you have scientific evidence you do believe in God? Aww bless, you seem awfully confused, are you saying that a belief in god is necessary to not rape women? Is that why some priest's choose to rape little boys?

SpaceX employ rocket 'scientists' for the basics, just saying. I hate to be a prophet of doom, but that's the same for most of us, just never forget that this endeavour is little more than a parlour game, it doesn't matter who wins; so slow down and enjoy what you can learn from the view. 😉

I'm not questioning the theory, I'm questioning our ability to deliver; I'm minded of 'the big bang theory', the episode where they try to bolw up the moon with a laser, they needed a photon multiplier to see if they hit the target. Jokes aside, can we confine the beam well enough to a/ hit the correct part of the target and b/ deliver enough energy to initiate the jet, at a great enough distance to effect the necessary change in trajectory; we can put plenty of energy into the beam from earth, but I imagine there would be difficulties in confining the beam through our atmosphere, and a space based laser, I would imagine they'd have difficulty with generating enough initial energy.

I put my faith in 'The Avengers', sorry couldn't resist; essentially it's all about the ETA, so our best defence is keeping our eye's peeled... I have to wonder if that would be effective, by the time a focused enough beam to make a difference, had any effect, it seems to me that it would probably be too late to make a real difference.

The only answer to that question is, it work's for humans among other's. What's the point of the question?

The only thing I find bothersome is, you're clearly an intelligent person, but you're trying to run before you can walk; please think about building your case, rather than flit from study to study saying "what about this".

You are missing the point, "Mother Nature" has a built in escape clause when it comes to actual overpopulation, it's an automatic death sentence, and your thoughts on the subject has very little to do with it.

That wasn't my intention, I was trying to get you to learn before you leap. What do you actually mean by a transducer? Because, as I've previously mentioned, tree's don't think before they open their mouths. Indeed, in the brain as I previously stated, we just don't know which bit does the thinking. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I mentioned dog's and computer's in relation to consciousness, in this thread (if memory serves). But again, it does nothing to bolster your case. What's all this "we" business Tonto, do you have a relevant doctorate?