Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AquaShrimp on February 15, 2008, 04:47:41 AM
-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144349.htm
An Israeli scientist, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, has found a link between cell phone usage and the development of tumors.
Being a ham radio operator, I know that using a hand held radio for any extended period of time can cause bloodshot eyes from the RF. When it comes down to it, thats all a cellphone is, just a low powered hand held radio.
-
im young and sociable and yet i manage to live completely without a mobile phone. or an ipod, or sat nav, or ....or....anything cool and modern. the whole tech-junk age is a load of toffee flavoured dog crap if you ask me.
-
Study: Use Of Phrase 'Don't Skimp On The' Linked To Heart Disease [/b]
February 15, 2008
DALLAS—According to a study published Monday by the American Heart Association, people who frequently start sentences with the phrase "don't skimp on the" are 40 percent more likely to develop some form of heart disease. "Use of the phrase poses a very serious health risk, especially when the speaker is in close proximity to mayonnaise," said Dr. Keith Logsdon, a leading cardiovascular researcher and chief author of the study. "We have also found data suggesting that the seemingly benign utterance 'just a sliver' could be equally detrimental to heart health, particularly when used three to four times in the span of an hour." Since completing the study, Logsdon and his fellow researchers have begun an in-depth exploration of the recent rise in heart attacks and its possible correlation with having watched all episodes of Soul Train when they originally aired. onion
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
im young and sociable and yet i manage to live completely without a mobile phone. or an ipod, or sat nav, or ....or....anything cool and modern. the whole tech-junk age is a load of toffee flavoured dog crap if you ask me.
What do you play WWII pilot with?
-
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a217/sarahjeanb/Peters/stoneage_computer_hg_clr.gif):lol
-
yeah fairplay moot, but i dont carry my PC round in my pocket where ever i go. computers are not even new tech, something like my 4yo desktop is seriously old and considerably humungous compared to the crap my little sister's generation must have in thier handbags.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
yeah fairplay moot, but i dont carry my PC round in my pocket where ever i go. computers are not even new tech, something like my 4yo desktop is seriously old and considerably humungous compared to the crap my little sister's generation must have in thier handbags.
aren't siblings in the same generation?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
aren't siblings in the same generation?
LOL, batfink, you've been tag-teamed. Might as well go back to bed :)
-
i will never be part of the ipod nano faceburk myspace numpty generation. im only 25 but when i was in school we used to rib on the kids who had them swanky pocket calculators. my little sis is almost 10 years younger, she is from a different world. yes sleep sounds good culero! just lemme get a little more narked and i'll pass out good n proper.
-
Several studies found increased risk of salivary or brain tumors on the same side of the head that cell phone uses held their phone. What I want to know is what about those of us who carry a cell phone in their pocket?
I'd rather have a brain tumor, at lest there's surgery for that.
-
Hospitals cause sickness, otherwise why would there be all those ill people there? Also, mice are spontaneously created in stacks of hay.
-
Life is deadly in the end.
-
toffee flavoured dog crap
====
What so bad about toffee flavoured dog crap?
Yes: Life is the leading cause of death. More people have died who have been alive than people who were never alive to begin with.
-
hmmm...well....would you eat rat poison with a cyanide garnish just because it tastes like lemon merange pie?
-
Batfink, I think it's less about the object of their obsession than about the to (given a chance) make their obsession (with gossip & co) even more immediate than before.
And humans are thinking animals. Tools that enrich the environment with information like cell phones and ipods were just begging to happen sooner or later. A good technology is a discreet technology.. It melds in with everything else, it's imbedded anytime it's feasible.
Just because some people are fairly vulgar artists isn't reason enough to write off all artists, or the continuation of art.
-
If you had to give up everything in your life completely except four things every true animal is going to choose eating, sleeping, mating and adrenalin. fine art goes out the window long before any of those four.
Everything else on this planet that manages to perform those four succesfully in a relaxed and relatively safe environment is truly living to it's potential and considers itself blessed with heaven on earth...except humans. every creaure that has this ultimate luxuary is living on a level so far above human society they've come back around and are lapping us, yet we see them as behind because we can store 5000 songs on our mobile phone?
sure, humans are very succesfull at achieving those four but with all the other luxuries of civilized life we created almost all of humanity's suffering.
hey did you ever here about the great dolphin war of 1652? no? of course not. my dad sailed round the world, he once told me about ocean waves you cannot imagine, mountains and valleys of water bombarded with wave after wave of never ending raw energy. he saw dolphins surfing at the top of a wave they were sailing along and they would swim to the boat smiling then jump and drop 80ft to the valley before the next crest. you tell me dolphins dont eat sleep screw and get stoned on their own adrenalin better than us?
those guys can scan prey for cancer with their minds.
we strap potential cancer threats to our heads.
-
Uhhhhhh wtf.
If you are going to talk for an extended period of time, just use a regular phone.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
aren't siblings in the same generation?
dependw on your definition of generation.
I know someone who's older sister is 20 years older then him.
Then again he also has an uncle 2 years younger then he is. LOL
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Uhhhhhh wtf.
If you are going to talk for an extended period of time, just use a regular phone.
I always say like my father used to say to my mother when she spent exended periods of time on the regular phone.
"If you have to talk to someone for that long and they dont live 100 or more miles away.
Just go visit them"
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
If you had to give up everything in your life completely except four things every true animal is going to choose eating, sleeping, mating and adrenalin. fine art goes out the window long before any of those four.
No.. My brain would be first, a body to execute my brain's will second, and third and fourth are both accessory to the first two. Fine art doesn't go out the window at all. I don't want to get into an argument longer than needed... Look at the Omega Man. The vampires are what you seem to suggest we should tend towards.
Everything else on this planet that manages to perform those four succesfully in a relaxed and relatively safe environment is truly living to it's potential and considers itself blessed with heaven on earth...except humans.
No.. Plenty of humans do it just fine. From average joes to professional Zen eggheads.
every creaure that has this ultimate luxuary is living on a level so far above human society they've come back around and are lapping us, yet we see them as behind because we can store 5000 songs on our mobile phone?
Yep.. Just because something great is used below potential doesn't make it crappy. I don't see what you mean by a level above ours.. What's the criteria? Mindless ignorance? Yeah, that's bliss alright...
sure, humans are very succesfull at achieving those four but with all the other luxuries of civilized life we created almost all of humanity's suffering.
No.. Suffering is a basic reaction that kids are too often conditioned to flip into anytime they're in danger, perceived or real. If you've acted according to what your conscience says is best, there's no reasong for any (self-inflicted) suffering. "Self-inflicted" because (believe it or not) all emotions are your own doing.
It's another thing when one's conscience is mistaken (KKK, extreme example).
hey did you ever here about the great dolphin war of 1652? no? of course not. my dad sailed round the world, he once told me about ocean waves you cannot imagine, mountains and valleys of water bombarded with wave after wave of never ending raw energy. he saw dolphins surfing at the top of a wave they were sailing along and they would swim to the boat smiling then jump and drop 80ft to the valley before the next crest. you tell me dolphins dont eat sleep screw and get stoned on their own adrenalin better than us?
Fairy tale idealism.. sorry. I've been in drunken parties (cough orgies cough) where people acted like the stupidest most animalistic retarded zombies I've seen to date... They got their basic insticts out of the closet alright! :lol
those guys can scan prey for cancer with their minds.
we strap potential cancer threats to our heads.
The human brain isn't done evolving, but it's already ahead of any other animal's. Maybe not in some of the lower animals' specialities, but easily so on the whole.
Scanning for prey and cancer is nothing new for us.
-
it's ok for us to disagree :)
personaly i still believe that all our luxuries and consumer markets are what causes all the suffering of humans. think about it for a while, i dont have the will to try and make you understand my view.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
it's ok for us to disagree :)
personaly i still believe that all our luxuries and consumer markets are what causes all the suffering of humans. think about it for a while, i dont have the will to try and make you understand my view.
Would you prefer the workers paradise of the Soviet Union, gospodin? That was a society based on your assertion, 1917-1991. I think someone wrote a book about it.
-
hardly chairboy. there has very rarely, if ever, been a period when a large group of humans lived with absolutely no material wealth. if we cut everything completely so that all we could do was eat, sleep, reproduce and run around to get our blood pumping then there would be no more war. it is the greed and possesion of our material world that causes every unjust act humans perform on other humans.
no matter how much good material gain you see in the developed human spieces of the currect epoch or indeed any age you cannot claim its worth without observing Newton's law. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. you think that doesnt apply to material happiness and currency?
-
Things that cause cancer you should worry about:
-- tobacco
-- sun
-- viral infections: HIV, hepatitis B, papilloma virus
-- high fat, low fiber diet
-- certain long-term, high level occupational exposures, such as asbestos
Things you shouldn't worry about:
-- cell phones
-- power lines
-- aspartame
-- lipstick
-- deodorant
-- underwire bras
-
How do you know we shouldn't be worrying about cellphones? They've only been in heavy use for the last 18 years. It takes longer than that for cancers to develop with other carcinogens (smoking, sun overexposure, etc).
Let me just give you a brief lesson on cancer. When a carcinogen damages our DNA, it has to do two things in order to give us cancer. It has to change our DNA (in a single cell) to destroy a tumor-suppressor gene. It also has to knock out the regulatory controls for a cell (found in proto-oncogenes). Since DNA damage is random, its kind of a pot-luck on when (or even if) it will cause cancer.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
How do you know we shouldn't be worrying about cellphones?
Because most of the controlled studies published in peer-review scientific journals have failed to find an increased risk of cancer with cell phone use. For example:
A large Danish study looked at cohort of 420,095 persons whose first cellular telephone subscription was between 1982 and 1995 and who were followed through 2002 for cancer incidence. Cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (Standardized incidence ratio = 0.97), acoustic neuromas (SIR = 0.73), salivary gland tumors (SIR = 0.77), eye tumors (SIR = 0.96), or leukemias (SIR = 1.00). Among long-term subscribers of 10 years or more, cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (SIR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.95), and there was no trend with time since first subscription. There was no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded. (Schüz J, et al. .Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1707-13.)
In a population-based case-control study, the authors identified all cases aged 20-69 years diagnosed with parotid gland tumor during 2000-2002 in Denmark and Sweden. For egular mobile phone use, regardless of duration, the risk estimates for malignant and benign tumors were 0.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.4, 1.3) and 0.9 (95% confidence interval: 0.5, 1.5), respectively. Similar results were found for more than 10 years' duration of mobile phone use. The risk estimate did not increase, regardless of type of phone and amount of use. The authors conclude that the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of parotid gland tumors. (Lönn S, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of parotid gland tumor. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Oct 1;164(7):637-43. Epub 2006 Jul 3.)
Let me just give you a brief lesson on cancer...
Dang! I wasted all that time taking medical oncology, epidemiology, mechanisms of disease, and pathology when I could have just gotten free lessons here.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
if we cut everything completely so that all we could do was eat, sleep, reproduce and run around to get our blood pumping then there would be no more war.
Do tell, how would you do that? You'd put together squads that go around 'liberating people of their possessions'? Once again,
Soviet Union (noun) - soe'vee'et yoo-nyun - Definition: A failed experiment in bringing the concept of a mugging to the national level.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Because most of the controlled studies published in peer-review scientific journals have failed to find an increased risk of cancer with cell phone use. For example:
A large Danish study looked at cohort of 420,095 persons whose first cellular telephone subscription was between 1982 and 1995 and who were followed through 2002 for cancer incidence. Cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (Standardized incidence ratio = 0.97), acoustic neuromas (SIR = 0.73), salivary gland tumors (SIR = 0.77), eye tumors (SIR = 0.96), or leukemias (SIR = 1.00). Among long-term subscribers of 10 years or more, cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (SIR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.95), and there was no trend with time since first subscription. There was no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded. (Schüz J, et al. .Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1707-13.)
In a population-based case-control study, the authors identified all cases aged 20-69 years diagnosed with parotid gland tumor during 2000-2002 in Denmark and Sweden. For egular mobile phone use, regardless of duration, the risk estimates for malignant and benign tumors were 0.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.4, 1.3) and 0.9 (95% confidence interval: 0.5, 1.5), respectively. Similar results were found for more than 10 years' duration of mobile phone use. The risk estimate did not increase, regardless of type of phone and amount of use. The authors conclude that the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of parotid gland tumors. (Lönn S, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of parotid gland tumor. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Oct 1;164(7):637-43. Epub 2006 Jul 3.)
Dang! I wasted all that time taking medical oncology, epidemiology, mechanisms of disease, and pathology when I could have just gotten free lessons here.
The time period of your study is a mere 2-10 years. The more elapsed time, the more findings there will be. Plus, your study is older than the one that I posted.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Do tell, how would you do that? You'd put together squads that go around 'liberating people of their possessions'? Once again,
Soviet Union (noun) - soe'vee'et yoo-nyun - Definition: A failed experiment in bringing the concept of a mugging to the national level.
once again you assume i want to change something or cause an effect with my words. assumptions based purely on trying to proove im a communist? i said we screwed up our evolution because of our ways, i didnt say there was still a chance.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The time period of your study is a mere 2-10 years. The more elapsed time, the more findings there will be. Plus, your study is older than the one that I posted.
The 1st study involved persons who were using cell phones since 1982, that's 20 years. The 2nd, over 10 years.
Sadetzki et al was a much smaller study and for the entire group, no increased risk of cancer was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio = 0.87; p = 0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated. It was only when the considered certain groups that they were able to show a statistical correlation, which by the way does not prove causation. Besides a number of other studies have shown no correlation.
You can't pick out one study, you have to look at all the data. And so far there's no compelling evidence that cell phone use is linked to cancer.
-
I'm still sceptical about the power lines.
I have no problem with the low voltage ones, anything from 66kV down isn't bad but the thing's I've seen happening to the natural environment in the vicinity if the HT transmission lines gave me the creeps. I've seen countless trees under the lines that fail to grow to their expected height, with weak deformed trunks. I've seen failed nests in the towers of large birds like the wedge tailed eagle and dead chicks with deformed bodies and limbs.
There is no way in hell you'll get me living within 500M of Transmission lines.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
it's ok for us to disagree :)
personaly i still believe that all our luxuries and consumer markets are what causes all the suffering of humans. think about it for a while, i dont have the will to try and make you understand my view.
So inanimate objects are the source of humans' feelings? You don't have to make me understand your view, it just needs to be presented clearly enough.
Excessive luxuries and consumer markets are people's doing, not the other way around.
if we cut everything completely so that all we could do was eat, sleep, reproduce and run around to get our blood pumping then there would be no more war.
Yeah, if we all went into a coma, that would work too. And better, in fact, so according to your line of thought you would prefer that. Right?
it is the greed and possesion of our material world that causes every unjust act humans perform on other humans.
Bogus. Throw a couple hundred people of all sorts on a big deserted island with nothing to own (not even the leaves from trees), and you'd still have a ton of drama.
no matter how much good material gain you see in the developed human spieces of the currect epoch or indeed any age you cannot claim its worth without observing Newton's law.
Non sequitur.
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. you think that doesnt apply to material happiness and currency?
Laws of physics applied verbatim to something else than physics? Currency might have some analogous characteristics, but material happiness? It's completely arbitrary.
Technology is the continuation of that bone the proverbial 2001 ape grabbed. It's the extension of our body, the extension of our will. Rejecting this means to extend our abilities to accomplish more, more efficiently is absurd. The purpose of man is to accomplish, whether it's in arts, science, or anything else.. The motor of man is desire, whether it's a desire to be excellent or mediocre, a nobody or somebody, holy or secular, constructive or destructive, etc. Without a purpose you are no different from a rock standing passive in the stream of time.
The "problem" with extreme consumerism is people who've concluded that they needed all that plastic wrap and superfluous crap that commercial organisms pelt them with. Those people live to eat, rather than eat to live.
Make no mistake though, running around naked in the woods is no end in itself.. It's no better a reason to live (and eat to) than an amoeba entertains sitting in its blissful puddle of ignorance.
-
Originally posted by moot
So inanimate objects are the source of humans' feelings? You don't have to make me understand your view, it just needs to be presented clearly enough.
only if i am bothered enough to make someone understand exactly how i do, and thats not ever easy or profitable to me.
Excessive luxuries and consumer markets are people's doing, not the other way around.
any ownership whatsoever causes many of the human sins. we should have developed our minds past violence before we even started developing weapons to steal other peoples cows.
Yeah, if we all went into a coma, that would work too. And better, in fact, so according to your line of thought you would prefer that. Right?
bullchit, what about love companionship and travel? could they not be enough pleausre for a lifetime and still include our 4 staples activities of food drink sex and adventure? it is the assigned value of our material development that clouds the truth about why humans fight each other so much and so brutaly
Bogus. Throw a couple hundred people of all sorts on a big deserted island with nothing to own (not even the leaves from trees), and you'd still have a ton of drama.
you misunderstand. i didnt say desert island. you can still find material gain on an island and find thigns to kill each other for. i said limit to those four completely. not limit your surroundings.
Laws of physics applied verbatim to something else than physics? Currency might have some analogous characteristics, but material happiness? It's completely arbitrary.
one little kid gets the new power action figure for chrstmas but another doesnt and this makes him sad, angry, dishonest, vengefull or another emotion. it works the same when one nation all have acres of fertile land to share and plenty of wealth and luxury and another nation has much less.
every single person who spends a day emitting a happy persona cannot fail to grind into the skull of at least one very unhappy person. every person who enjoys owning something openly makes an equal emotion of jealousy in at least one person at some point.
for me is far more important than pysics but shares the same rules in many cases. only time i worry much about physics is when im high in the air.
-
Technology is the continuation of that bone the proverbial 2001 ape grabbed. It's the extension of our body, the extension of our will. Rejecting this means to extend our abilities to accomplish more, more efficiently is absurd. The purpose of man is to accomplish, whether it's in arts, science, or anything else.. The motor of man is desire, whether it's a desire to be excellent or mediocre, a nobody or somebody, holy or secular, constructive or destructive, etc. Without a purpose you are no different from a rock standing passive in the stream of time.
The "problem" with extreme consumerism is people who've concluded that they needed all that plastic wrap and superfluous crap that commercial organisms pelt them with. Those people live to eat, rather than eat to live.
Make no mistake though, running around naked in the woods is no end in itself.. It's no better a reason to live (and eat to) than an amoeba entertains sitting in its blissful puddle of ignorance.
this is a good one so im not going to reply, but i will read it again and think some. i certainly dont think what i am suggesting would involve just running naked through the woods. what have we really accomplished apart from making our own lives longer and more painfull in many cases.
-
Originally posted by SD67
I'm still sceptical about the power lines.
I have no problem with the low voltage ones, anything from 66kV down isn't bad but the thing's I've seen happening to the natural environment in the vicinity if the HT transmission lines gave me the creeps. I've seen countless trees under the lines that fail to grow to their expected height, with weak deformed trunks.
They cut the trees down under power lines so they do not interfere with the lines. Chainsaws do tend to deform trunks.
-
Chainsaws cause cancer!?
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144349.htm
Being a ham radio operator, I know that using a hand held radio for any extended period of time can cause bloodshot eyes from the RF. When it comes down to it, thats all a cellphone is, just a low powered hand held radio.
Well I dont talk on the cell phone, i txt
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
Well I dont talk on the cell phone, i txt
It shows.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Chainsaws cause cancer!?
Sawdust is a carcinogen... carsonogen... cancer causer.
-
Tons of flaws in your arguments Batfink!
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
any ownership whatsoever causes many of the human sins.
No. Inanimate objects have no power over people's minds.
we should have developed our minds past violence before we even started developing weapons to steal other peoples cows.
No. If we waited for even the majority (nevermind 90-99%) of the world population to learn better than to be violent, we'd never have progress like we've had, nevermind what we're capable of. We'd have had WWII carry on beyond Aug. '45, we'd never have had electricity because serial killers somewhere out there were likely to drop toasters into people's bathtubs.. We'd not be learning how dangerous applications of useful things worked so as to prevent the dangerous applications, e.g. bio/chemical warfare, nanomanufacturing, IT security, cryptography.
Comatose peace - You said:
"if we cut everything completely so that all we could do was eat, sleep, reproduce and run around to get our blood pumping then there would be no more war."
Which is throwing the baby with the bath water. If your goal is to absolutely remove the risk of war, then you are better off putting everyone to sleep than leaving something as risky as "reproduction". That's still a significant cause of violence today, technology or not.
you misunderstand. [...] i said limit to those four completely. not limit your surroundings.
See above.
one little kid gets the new power action figure for chrstmas but another doesnt and this makes him sad [...]
No, he gets sad on his own. The power action figure doesn't zap his brains into feeling sad.
angry, dishonest, vengefull or another emotion. it works the same when one nation all have acres of fertile land to share and plenty of wealth and luxury and another nation has much less.
No.. I want a whole planet to myself, with a full blown top of the line lab to experiment with, and all the tools that ever existed for me to build stuff with (e.g. warbirds).. It's completely unrealistic, all things considered, but that doesn't mean I suddenly "feel" anger and vengefulness for this un-satisfaction of my wants or needs. I don't go on a murderous rampage to steal the keys to the space shuttle for a joyride to the stars...
Since you like stories.. My dad was born in a stone house in the middle of nowhere, Venezuela's countryside, near the mountains. Podunk. The wealthiest thing about his family was his dad being the head of the local militia.
What did my dad do, stuck in poverty like that? Did he get all pissy that elsewhere kids his age were swimming in cash? No.. He scored high enough to get a scholarship to Europe, worked his bellybutton off for a bunch of diplomas in electronics and physics, and scored himself a job that's led him from being a brown-skin nobody in a french company full of racist bastards, to being one of the pillars of the american division of a company that's the best of its field worldwide (save for one or two extremely high end, very low output competitors)...
His capitalizing on opportunity means I and my brothers can stand on his shoulders and reach even higher.
every single person who spends a day emitting a happy persona cannot fail to grind into the skull of at least one very unhappy person.
Yeah, if "happiness" makes sense, people will buy it.
every person who enjoys owning something openly makes an equal emotion of jealousy in at least one person at some point.
No.. Did you forget what you wrote in the preceding sentence? How do you resolve someone who emits happiness at his ownership? How do you explain people visiting exhibitions like car shows and museums, or air races? Do you really think those kids that come back from seeing all that are poisoned with envy rather than inspired?
what have we really accomplished apart from making our own lives longer and more painfull in many cases.
Gee I dunno... This is taking too long so I'm just gonna rip a list off somewhere else, you can pick and choose what you think was a catastrophic development for humanity... :
1. Electrification
2. Automobile
3. Airplane
4. Water Supply and Distribution
5. Electronics
6. Radio and Television
7. Agricultural Mechanization
8. Computers
9. Telephone
10. Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
11. Highways
12. Spacecraft
13. Internet
14. Imaging
15. Household Appliances
16. Health Technologies
17. Petroleum and Petrochemical Technologies
18. Laser and Fiber Optics
19. Nuclear Technologies
20. High-performance Materials
And looking to the future, these were recently concluded to be the most important challenges we should overcome in the 21st century:
Make solar energy affordable
Provide energy from fusion
Develop carbon sequestration methods
Manage the nitrogen cycle
Provide access to clean water
Restore and improve urban infrastructure
Advance health informatics
Engineer better medicines
Reverse-engineer the brain
Prevent nuclear terror
Secure cyberspace
Enhance virtual reality
Advance personalized learning
Engineer the tools for scientific discovery
Do these make your skin curl too? The best way to get what you want is to work for it. The best way to make something work is to apply maximum force towards it and/or in a most efficient manner. Efficiency is a matter of engineering (i.e. wit), and that "brute force" can in most cases be manpower.
What am I on about? Given that everyone on the planet is human, there's some fundamental things everyone has in common, and those things which everyone commonly enjoys are things which everyone stands to benefit from working together on.
Living longer, better, and having more things to do and explore are indeed things worth striving for, and restricting ourselves to just eating, sleeping, reproducing and running around to get our blood pumping isn't going to get us those things. Nevermind the fact that doing those things or not isn't what causes war.
-
Originally posted by moot
Gee I dunno... This is taking too long so I'm just gonna rip a list off somewhere else, you can pick and choose what you think was a catastrophic development for humanity... :
1. Electrification
Loss of fish runs, Global warming, Electrocution
2. Automobile
Smog, Traffic deaths, GW
3. Airplane
GW, Ozone
4. Water Supply and Distribution
River dams, diversions, fish runs, loss of Colorado Estuary ecosystem
5. Electronics
6. Radio and Television
Britany Spears
7. Agricultural Mechanization
Topsoil depletion, Loss of NA Great plains Tall Grass ecosystems
8. Computers
See Internet
9. Telephone
(Cellular Telephone anyway)... traffic death, phone calls in theaters, Village ppl ring tones
10. Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
Ozone Depletion
11. Highways
Smog, Traffic deaths, GW
12. Spacecraft
13. Internet
Leave Britany Spears alone videos, Paris Hiilton
14. Imaging
15. Household Appliances
Electric fondu pots, Ronco Vegamatic
16. Health Technologies
17. Petroleum and Petrochemical Technologies
Smog, Traffic deaths, GW
18. Laser and Fiber Optics
19. Nuclear Technologies
Hiroshima, TMI, Chernobyl, Global Thermonuclear War
20. High-performance Materials
[/B]
-
You missed:
Electronics: Evesdropping on horny neighbours, talking toys, and junk that never works like it's supposed to
Spacecraft: Mega-chemtrails, Big Brother sats in orbit and Alien parasites brought back to Earth
Imaging: 'X-Ray' glasses that see thru clothes, invasion of unborn babies' privacy, and removing tumors from where they're supposed to be
Health Technologies: People live longer and better.. Need I say more? :furious We can't let tyrants of the world live longer just because everyone else would benefit from it too dangit!
Laser and Fiber optics: It gives crackpots like Hawkins more credence (high power lasers can replicate black holes' event horizons' conditions), brought us broadband which means porn :mad:, and Optical computers would run faster which would mean EVEN MORE porn.
High Performance Materials: Those annoying metal things that go vrrrrrrrrrr under the wings of planes, race cars go EVEN FASTER so that drivers and spectators are under even more danger, safer armor for soldiers mean they survive to kill EVEN MORE babies :mad:
-
Village people ringtones :lol
-
Originally posted by moot
Tons of flaws in your arguments Batfink!
No. Inanimate objects have no power over people's minds.
oh ok, so criminals steal things just for the thrill of possibly being shot then.
after that start i couldnt face your wall of text, sorry.
-
Sorry Bat but your arguments splintered every which way.
Criminals are in it for the same reason everyone else does what they do. They just do it for mistaken reasons, for the most part.