dimreepr

AFAIK you're the only person, in this thread that's said, or implied, any of this and that's a strawman. Change will happen and IMHO that change is better in the hands of professionals, scientists hand in hand with philosophers and diplomats; I'm sure there's others who qualify, but let's keep it simple. I think the most important thing we can do for humanity is, learn how to be content with oneself and then teach others what one has learned. Content people don't wage war's on, or hate other, people; life/death is circular, being content with that brings it own reward.

We can place every domino in the order it must fall, we can't know which one will fail; for instance, what domino deserves more justice?

I wonder, other than on the battlefield (with a genuine hero) or on the Enterprise, how often one would advocate for the greater good when ones own self is in peril? That's a fallacious argument, which ironically highlights the thrust of my argument; we can't always tell if that medical advancement, will kill more than it heals (less likely now than 50 years ago, admittedly) and we certainly can't know what a patient will go on to do after treatment.

OK, answer this; in the last 2,000 year's, what is the single most important change?

Ok, with 3 negs it's clear my meaning has been misunderstood, certainly no insult intended; please consider it within the contex of this recent exchange. This comment should have been in quotes: It's something @MarkusHankesaid in a recent debate we had about the role of teacher's on our thinking. Even if, like Markus, you are capable of teaching yourself to a PhD level, you still need a teacher to teach you the fundamentals that allow a base from which to build. Not everybody is capable of reaching PhD level, however good the teacher is. The point is, if we have no specific reason's to doubt our teacher's, there is no specific reason to question the teaching of religion's, it's not really about a diety, it's about our human condition and how to help the most people to feel, at least, content and basically happy to see what tomorrow will bring; through various cultural lenses.

Indeed, that's part of the reason why, the OP is unanswerable

This is the same as the grandad paradox in time travel fiction; it's impossible to predict causality in a complex model. Possibly the best predictive model we have is meteorological, while it work's very well at predicting tomorrows (jan 4 2023) rainfall and temperature in Stonehouse, it's next door to impossible to predict next year's (jan 4 2024) rainfall and temperature in Stonehouse. So we're back to the fundamental question of this thread, what is the best thing for humanity? If we can answer that, then we, at least, have a start point of a model that can start to try and answer the OP.

Imagine that.

Define free.

You can suspend your disbelief, but I'm gonna need to see the fairy. Which is? All I can see is a troll...

Then they're only hidden from the rest of us; and, it seems, your not capable of explaining it to anyone, so what's the point of this thread? You may as well be describing fairies, to a trampoline...

If the symbols are hidden, how do you know they are there? Besides, what's George Boole got to do with your own verification?

I've always thought about invasive species as stage 1 of the evolutionary process; even when it dominates the local flora and forna, balance will be established. We fear change and imagine we can stop it, and even if we could we can't tell which change will be good for tomorrow.

They tried...

What you can't do is ban it...

Then shut up and calculate...

What your teacher's believe...

Haven't you been taught? The religion factor is only wrong, when were told...

What have you been taught?

And the difference is?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0012fnc Well worth a listen... Isn't a fairy tale a human institution? In that Reith Lecture, the question is asked "What would allow a human to live in a world without work?" Some human's can, Buddha for instance, not only can but has the ability to teach others. What other human institution, tries???

I'm not sure there is any sort of distinction between a thiestic and non thiestic religion, both require a leap of faith at some point; karma for instance, require a belief that the nasty b'stard will sufer appropriately (without your witness), which could be argued is easier to believe with some sort of diety. Well, your Hitler arguement basically shoot's this argument in the foot. "The briefiest look at history will tell you that the early religions that were around when civilisation was in it's infancy were hugely vicious and destructive in nature." Until Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc. came along

Religion is like our favourite comedian, they make us laugh and feel better, and they all take the piss out of each other, which is funny; but wo betide the funny man that takes the piss out of our favourite comedian. Ricky Gervais is not the same as God, but in 5000 year's some people will still get the joke. Fear - joke = Ignorance.

I think we're curently in the capitalism end game, by which I mean, children are not taught about value at all; they are bombarded by made up dream's, which is avaliable to everyone and if you can't afford it now, we have a plan 😉... If only we had a PhD student to investigate the value of money...