Should civilization be destroyed?

[Kreanoltha]

fusion is the real step forwards, and it too only needs a few more years of RnD.

Nuclear fusion has needed a few more years of R&D for decades now.

first power producing plant is coming into fruition already:
http://www.iter.org/proj/buildingiter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

sorry for not producing sources first time, was busy.[/quote]

The US already has a reactor that can produce more power than in invested into it. It isn't a functioning power plant yet, but with modification it could be.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

Nuclear fusion has needed a few more years of R&D for decades now.

first power producing plant is coming into fruition already:
http://www.iter.org/proj/buildingiter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

sorry for not producing sources first time, was busy.

The US already has a reactor that can produce more power than in invested into it. It isn't a functioning power plant yet, but with modification it could be.[/quote]
didn't know that, but ITER will be a true power plant, and lead the way to even bigger ones. although even this is not truly renewable, it just uses the most abundant substance in the universe.

[Natapoc]

Stop mass extinction and destruction of the biosphere.

And these are intrinsic to civilization? Is it impossible to have civilization and refrain from doing these things?

We're giving up a lot if we get rid of civilization, not the least of which is the infrastructure that can help us to change these things. You have not shown this to be a good trade.

That is because I'm not advocating getting rid of civilization. As I've stated before in this thread I support the existence of civilization just not THIS civilization. In other words, I think there is allot we can improve on.

Note that in this thread I'm asking for YOUR views on civilization and although I've also given mine i'm not attempting to argue the view that civilization SHOULD be destroyed.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

And these are intrinsic to civilization? Is it impossible to have civilization and refrain from doing these things?

We're giving up a lot if we get rid of civilization, not the least of which is the infrastructure that can help us to change these things. You have not shown this to be a good trade.

That is because I'm not advocating getting rid of civilization. As I've stated before in this thread I support the existence of civilization just not THIS civilization. In other words, I think there is allot we can improve on.

Note that in this thread I'm asking for YOUR views on civilization and although I've also given mine i'm not attempting to argue the view that civilization SHOULD be destroyed.

oh right now you're starting to make sense.

[Korintar]

first power producing plant is coming into fruition already:
http://www.iter.org/proj/buildingiter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

sorry for not producing sources first time, was busy.

The US already has a reactor that can produce more power than in invested into it. It isn't a functioning power plant yet, but with modification it could be.

didn't know that, but ITER will be a true power plant, and lead the way to even bigger ones. although even this is not truly renewable, it just uses the most abundant substance in the universe. [/quote]

Interesting. Wanna place bets on when the fossil fuels industry will buy the patents off the inventors and destroy the plans, and how much they will be willing and prepared to offer? Also wanna place bets on the odds the sorry inventors will become unwilling co-customers of the cement-shoe industry should they refuse?

[Carcharhinidae primari]

The US already has a reactor that can produce more power than in invested into it. It isn't a functioning power plant yet, but with modification it could be.

didn't know that, but ITER will be a true power plant, and lead the way to even bigger ones. although even this is not truly renewable, it just uses the most abundant substance in the universe.

Interesting. Wanna place bets on when the fossil fuels industry will buy the patents off the inventors and destroy the plans, and how much they will be willing and prepared to offer? Also wanna place bets on the odds the sorry inventors will become unwilling co-customers of the cement-shoe industry should they refuse?[/quote]
hmm, royal shell would probably try, but the program's government-funded, they can't really interfere. thank the emperor.

[Korintar]

And these are intrinsic to civilization? Is it impossible to have civilization and refrain from doing these things?

We're giving up a lot if we get rid of civilization, not the least of which is the infrastructure that can help us to change these things. You have not shown this to be a good trade.

That is because I'm not advocating getting rid of civilization. As I've stated before in this thread I support the existence of civilization just not THIS civilization. In other words, I think there is allot we can improve on.

Note that in this thread I'm asking for YOUR views on civilization and although I've also given mine i'm not attempting to argue the view that civilization SHOULD be destroyed.

Natapoc, then, um, why did you entitle this "Should civilization be destroyed?"

[Natapoc]

That is because I'm not advocating getting rid of civilization. As I've stated before in this thread I support the existence of civilization just not THIS civilization. In other words, I think there is allot we can improve on.

Note that in this thread I'm asking for YOUR views on civilization and although I've also given mine i'm not attempting to argue the view that civilization SHOULD be destroyed.

Natapoc, then, um, why did you entitle this "Should civilization be destroyed?"

You mean "why did I entitle this "Civilization SHOULD be destroyed?"" why because that would radically change the meaning of the sentence.

Some people feel civilization should be destroyed.
Others don't.

[Kreanoltha]

The US already has a reactor that can produce more power than in invested into it. It isn't a functioning power plant yet, but with modification it could be.

didn't know that, but ITER will be a true power plant, and lead the way to even bigger ones. although even this is not truly renewable, it just uses the most abundant substance in the universe.

Thankfully the oceans produce tons of hydrogen, and there is already enough ²H and ³H out there to begin refining it for reactions. Later we can use heavy water refinement to produce more of it.

[Poorisolation]

Natapoc, then, um, why did you entitle this "Should civilization be destroyed?"

You mean "why did I entitle this "Civilization SHOULD be destroyed?"" why because that would radically change the meaning of the sentence.

Some people feel civilization should be destroyed.
Others don't.

No he means why not use a title such as "Is Civilisation truly the best solution for human problems?" or perhaps "Is Civilisation the best way to do things?" or other less pejorative titles.

[Natapoc]

You mean "why did I entitle this "Civilization SHOULD be destroyed?"" why because that would radically change the meaning of the sentence.

Some people feel civilization should be destroyed.
Others don't.

No he means why not use a title such as "Is Civilisation truly the best solution for human problems?" or perhaps "Is Civilisation the best way to do things?" or other less pejorative titles.

The title (something some people fully agree with) is the first question.

The OP then further refines the concept asking additional questions:

If you could have stopped civilization from ever stating would you have?
Do you think it is possible to return to a pre civilization state?

If you like civilization why? What value is there in civilization for you personally?

One thing I found interesting from many peoples answers to the personal question one is that they were not very unique nor were they personal and often they did not depend on civilization at all.

For example: music and art do not require civilization to exist and neither does knowledge.

[Korintar]

Natapoc, then, um, why did you entitle this "Should civilization be destroyed?"

You mean "why did I entitle this "Civilization SHOULD be destroyed?"" why because that would radically change the meaning of the sentence.

Some people feel civilization should be destroyed.
Others don't.

Your previous comments don't help your case, Natapoc. If one takes the more moderate stance that you are now claiming, I must agree, as would most people, that business as usual is not conducive to the long term survival of society as a whole. We must switch from an ideology where economic growth and faux liberty are considered the highest goods to one where sustainability and democracy are the highest goods.

@ Carcharhinidae primari: The whole cold fusion reactor thing sounds promising. I am hoping and praying that it works. Despite my fellow Greens protestations, I think it best if we do research into nuclear power as it is currently the most efficient known alternative to the fossil fuel industry in regards to electricity production at this time. I am hoping that increased research is done to develop ductile super conducting materials for wiring, thus increasing efficiency of energy use.

[Poorisolation]

No he means why not use a title such as "Is Civilisation truly the best solution for human problems?" or perhaps "Is Civilisation the best way to do things?" or other less pejorative titles.

The title (something some people fully agree with) is the first question.

The OP then further refines the concept asking additional questions:

If you could have stopped civilization from ever stating would you have?
Do you think it is possible to return to a pre civilization state?

If you like civilization why? What value is there in civilization for you personally?

So in other words you were taking a specific stance that civilisation should be destroyed?

If not then it is clear that the title was in error and what we have essentially learned from this thread is that you are not terribly good at reasoning through topic titles that are not highly suggestive of a predisposition to a given philosophical position.

[Korintar]

No he means why not use a title such as "Is Civilisation truly the best solution for human problems?" or perhaps "Is Civilisation the best way to do things?" or other less pejorative titles.

The title (something some people fully agree with) is the first question.

The OP then further refines the concept asking additional questions:

If you could have stopped civilization from ever stating would you have?
Do you think it is possible to return to a pre civilization state?

If you like civilization why? What value is there in civilization for you personally?

One thing I found interesting from many peoples answers to the personal question one is that they were not very unique nor were they personal and often they did not depend on civilization at all.

For example: music and art do not require civilization to exist and neither does knowledge.

My survival depends on its existence. And, by the way, your inquiries and subsequent posts suggested a pejorative tone to the topic of discussion, not the moderation you are now claiming.

[Natapoc]

You mean "why did I entitle this "Civilization SHOULD be destroyed?"" why because that would radically change the meaning of the sentence.

Some people feel civilization should be destroyed.
Others don't.

Your previous comments don't help your case, Natapoc. If one takes the more moderate stance that you are now claiming, I must agree, as would most people, that business as usual is not conducive to the long term survival of society as a whole. We must switch from an ideology where economic growth and faux liberty are considered the highest goods to one where sustainability and democracy are the highest goods.

@ Carcharhinidae primari: The whole cold fusion reactor thing sounds promising. I am hoping and praying that it works. Despite my fellow Greens protestations, I think it best if we do research into nuclear power as it is currently the most efficient known alternative to the fossil fuel industry in regards to electricity production at this time. I am hoping that increased research is done to develop ductile super conducting materials for wiring, thus increasing efficiency of energy use.

I've been consistent throughout this thread. What previous comments.

Cold fusion is a myth btw. It's pure pseudoscience.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

You mean "why did I entitle this "Civilization SHOULD be destroyed?"" why because that would radically change the meaning of the sentence.

Some people feel civilization should be destroyed.
Others don't.

Your previous comments don't help your case, Natapoc. If one takes the more moderate stance that you are now claiming, I must agree, as would most people, that business as usual is not conducive to the long term survival of society as a whole. We must switch from an ideology where economic growth and faux liberty are considered the highest goods to one where sustainability and democracy are the highest goods.

@ Carcharhinidae primari: The whole cold fusion reactor thing sounds promising. I am hoping and praying that it works. Despite my fellow Greens protestations, I think it best if we do research into nuclear power as it is currently the most efficient known alternative to the fossil fuel industry in regards to electricity production at this time. I am hoping that increased research is done to develop ductile super conducting materials for wiring, thus increasing efficiency of energy use.

cold fusion? that's not exactly scientifically proven to be possible. it was a nice theory, but hot fusion we know about, and can work with. also, there are several ductile superconductors, it's just that when you cool something down to below 30 degrees kelvin everything become brittle.

[Natapoc]

you are not terribly good at reasoning through topic titles that are not highly suggestive of a predisposition to a given philosophical position.

Personal attack after personal attack. The standard of debate and discussion on this forum is at an all time low.

[Natapoc]

The title (something some people fully agree with) is the first question.

The OP then further refines the concept asking additional questions:

If you could have stopped civilization from ever stating would you have?
Do you think it is possible to return to a pre civilization state?

If you like civilization why? What value is there in civilization for you personally?

One thing I found interesting from many peoples answers to the personal question one is that they were not very unique nor were they personal and often they did not depend on civilization at all.

For example: music and art do not require civilization to exist and neither does knowledge.

My survival depends on its existence. And, by the way, your inquiries and subsequent posts suggested a pejorative tone to the topic of discussion, not the moderation you are now claiming.

Why do you feel that your survival depends on it's existence?

That is by the way, a perfectly valid reason to support it.

[Korintar]

My survival depends on its existence. And, by the way, your inquiries and subsequent posts suggested a pejorative tone to the topic of discussion, not the moderation you are now claiming.

Why do you feel that your survival depends on it's existence?

That is by the way, a perfectly valid reason to support it.

I've got some potentially lethal health problems that can only be managed through medicines and technologies developed by means of civilization... I'd rather not mention my health history here.

[Korintar]

Your previous comments don't help your case, Natapoc. If one takes the more moderate stance that you are now claiming, I must agree, as would most people, that business as usual is not conducive to the long term survival of society as a whole. We must switch from an ideology where economic growth and faux liberty are considered the highest goods to one where sustainability and democracy are the highest goods.

@ Carcharhinidae primari: The whole cold fusion reactor thing sounds promising. I am hoping and praying that it works. Despite my fellow Greens protestations, I think it best if we do research into nuclear power as it is currently the most efficient known alternative to the fossil fuel industry in regards to electricity production at this time. I am hoping that increased research is done to develop ductile super conducting materials for wiring, thus increasing efficiency of energy use.

cold fusion? that's not exactly scientifically proven to be possible. it was a nice theory, but hot fusion we know about, and can work with. also, there are several ductile superconductors, it's just that when you cool something down to below 30 degrees kelvin everything become brittle.

I misunderstood, still, hot fusion sounds doable and is something I can get behind, and I guess I should have specified by adding the words "high temperature". Mea culpa.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

cold fusion? that's not exactly scientifically proven to be possible. it was a nice theory, but hot fusion we know about, and can work with. also, there are several ductile superconductors, it's just that when you cool something down to below 30 degrees kelvin everything become brittle.

I misunderstood, still, hot fusion sounds doable and is something I can get behind, and I guess I should have specified by adding the words "high temperature". Mea culpa.

alas room temperature superconductors continue to elude us.

[Poorisolation]

you are not terribly good at reasoning through topic titles that are not highly suggestive of a predisposition to a given philosophical position.

Personal attack after personal attack. The standard of debate and discussion on this forum is at an all time low.

It is not an attack merely a critique. You wish to claim that you are a neutral on the subject and yet the opening title suggests you having taken a position which ergo suggests that you are not very good at picking a topic title. I have not attempted to comment on your person, your morals, your family or your choice in haircare products any of which would indeed constitute personal attacks. I have merely remarked that on the basis of the available evidence you are simply not very good at choosing topic titles that indicate your true stance on the matter.

This is surely something you would wish people to take into account in order to promote a better level of dialogue between yourself and others?

Also judging by the standards shown by many in just this one thread I would not regard the standard of debate as being at all time low or even without more evidence at a low.

[Natapoc]

I have merely remarked that on the basis of the available evidence you are simply not very good at choosing topic titles that indicate your true stance on the matter.
.

Indeed I never stated my "stance" in the OP except in a single statement of fact which is not really disputable but which has no moral weight.

[Korintar]

I have merely remarked that on the basis of the available evidence you are simply not very good at choosing topic titles that indicate your true stance on the matter.
.

Indeed I never stated my "stance" in the OP except in a single statement of fact which is not really disputable but which has no moral weight.

The statement of fact, or the one declarative sentence you used in the OP, is not a statement of fact. It is a hypothesis or thesis which requires multiple lines of proof to establish as being true with its critics engaged head on in such a way that it builds up their argument fairly and still proves to be the simplest, most accurate solution to the problem that your thesis seeks to address.

[Natapoc]

The real reason I started the thread is because I have a device which can destroy all of civilization with a single press of a button and I just needed a vote about if I should press the button or not.


Guess the vote is no so far.