dimreepr

Like I said, living in space IS possible since there're several humans that currently do so.

I think it shows that however valid/profound the initial design/message is; time, interpretation and corruption can make that design/message mean what those in authorities wants it to mean, it’s Chinese whispers by design rather than accident.

Since we have a billion years to figure it out, I'm sure we'll find a way otherwise I refer to Klaynos's answer.

Leave... Edit/ Sorry I misread the OP; living in space is possible since there’re several humans that currently do so.

There’s a great deal of pleasure to be had from guns, I love target/skeet shooting but when the ‘excuse’ is safety, the ‘reason’ is revenge.

I’ve never suggested that technology itself causes loss, which seems to be the confusion here; my suggestion is that technology/progress creates ‘comfort’ and that’s what we fear to lose.

I think the fear of loss differs from the fear of physical danger and is far more morally destructive, I merely suggest technology/progress fuels the fear of loss.

The fear of losing the past is equivalent to losing the comfort of now: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/molr69&div=40&id=&page= http://www.jstor.org/stable/591751?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.jstor.org/stable/591751?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.jstor.org/stable/1143018?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents So I agree with this, but I don’t think progress would be limited to it.

My point, maybe a little confused, was that technological progression seems to inspire a moral regression, in that the comfort technology brings also inspires a fear of losing that comfort; fear and morals seems to be uncomfortable bed-fellows.

Whilst I agree with the majority of your post, I can’t agree that science has all the answers, yet (probably never), and given that, how can all philosophical thinking be null or religious in nature? After all, without good questions how can science hope to aspire to answering “life the universe and everything”?

Freedom of speech is illusory, much like freedom itself; the only profound part of this quote is “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom” but even that is axiomatic because freedom of thought can’t be limited, whatever force employed. The 1st amendment was designed to prevent the truth being denied by authority, it was never intended to protect an agent provocateur from justice.

Exactly my point, progress appears null without an analogous moral progression.

At the risk of being flippant, use your sat-nav.

Please stop conflating a whole religion with terrorism, it’s ridiculous and only inspires hatred and fear, and will only exaggerate the problem (it’s like saying because the IRA were Catholics then all Catholics are terrorists). I have to ask, why do you bother trying to discus something when you’re so sure of your answer?

I’m sorry for any ambiguity in the OP but the question is about progress not technology, specifically, the fear of losing our stuff and the general comforts progress provides and how much that diminishes our moral code.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/mar/23/refugee-crisis-human-rights-uk-criticism-david-cameron-theresa-may

If you're unsure, ask it anyway, a good question of topic will get split, otherwise it will just get answered; either way listening to the answer is far more important than the question.

This would suggest 1% of us would be affected adversely in moral terms whilst 99% of us do so through manipulation, I have to disagree. Doesn’t such regulation distort reality and critical thinking? If, for instance, our children have already heard foul language, surely we should be teaching them a method to discern when such language is appropriate, rather than, trying to dictate when they hear it? It seems, from this, that the sword is just as sharp however limited the acceptance of progress/modernity

I’m a great fan of technological progress, in the main, sure it can dive down the wrong tunnel on occasion but I would be diminished were it not for this internet thingy or the relative comfort of modern life. However it's to be a double edged sword; the fear of losing the advantages of progress seems to require an equivalent waning of moral fortitude. All thoughts welcome.

I completely agree on both counts but there is another reason: http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/international_refugee_law.php I can't help thinking our, so called, civilisation is slipping more than a little...

I like to think my morals do not include “I’m alright jack”; do you not understand, they’re ordinary people that have been forced to leave the comfort of their home, to sleep in a field and beg for food, from people, like you, who’d rather they’d just piss-off back home to stare down the barrel of a gun.

To further illustrate, by getting out of bed I risk death and by staying in bed death is inevitable; life is for living (and not living in fear), and just accepting/tolerating what you can’t change and helping those in need, makes that life worth living (BTW cowering in the corner is no different to staying in bed). Can you define the moment of your death? Why fear what you can’t possibly know? Why risk living in limbo because you hate/fear too much?

Politicians can’t do anything without causing harm to its citizens; BTW at what point does your allegiance stop? Is it family/friends, current location, nation, national alliances and in the case of an alien threat, the Earth? The point of tolerance is to accept what you don’t like, not fear it.

Everyone’s free to question, it’s the not listening part that folks tend to grow tired of.

Indeed, if I always look the wrong way at the wrong time, I could always be looking at nothing; even in a very limited space. But how did we miss a God?