What was the most destructive human creation?

[unriggable]

As I said earlier in the thread, the Television wins this hands down. It is poisonous.

I never watch TV unless a good footy match is on, and I despise immensley people who watch it for 'reality TV' and 'Soaps'.

I agree, except that I watch documentaries on TV sometimes.

[Guiscard]

well you certainly know your crusades but the church at the time was extremely corrupt (you probably know what i am talking about if not ask me) almost none of the elite clergy really were in charge because of religious reasons, because a handful of men could leverage almost all of Europe. they were not in the Vatican because they were godly but because they knew someone were were a somebody. these men were by no means doing the crusades by religious reasons, they had extreme authority over every aspect of European life they just wanted to expand their empire and control. this is why Martin Luther and other reformers broke away from the catholic church. i say it again just because the (religious) leadership abused their power and perverted the religion, government or any ruling body does not mean the whole majority knew what or why they were doing it and cannot be held accountable. you must remember the people thought (incorrectly) that the church had the power to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. this is an extremely powerful position that the Vatican has, and as the old saying goes ultimate power corrupts

Yeh but the general point is that religion 'brainwashes' the masses into believing what those men tell them because it creates a hierarchy with control, inessence, over your eternal wellfare. The concept of religion acted as both an excuse and a motivation. You can look today at extremist Islam as another example of the concept of religion being twisted and bastardised into a violent form. It is a bit like the opium of Karl Marx fame ... it can be used for practical purposes (as medical pain relief) but also as a destructive drug which drives people to kill for it.

[Norse]

As I said earlier in the thread, the Television wins this hands down. It is poisonous.

I never watch TV unless a good footy match is on, and I despise immensley people who watch it for 'reality TV' and 'Soaps'.

I agree, except that I watch documentaries on TV sometimes.

Agreed!

Documentaries are great, but they generally aren't shown that often on terrestrial channels, unfortunately.

[unriggable]

As I said earlier in the thread, the Television wins this hands down. It is poisonous.

I never watch TV unless a good footy match is on, and I despise immensley people who watch it for 'reality TV' and 'Soaps'.

I agree, except that I watch documentaries on TV sometimes.

Agreed!

Documentaries are great, but they generally aren't shown that often on terrestrial channels, unfortunately.

History Channel, Discovery Channel. I especially am starting to hate these crime lab shows, used to watch them but now its getting annoying.

[Norse]

As I said earlier in the thread, the Television wins this hands down. It is poisonous.

I never watch TV unless a good footy match is on, and I despise immensley people who watch it for 'reality TV' and 'Soaps'.

I agree, except that I watch documentaries on TV sometimes.

Agreed!

Documentaries are great, but they generally aren't shown that often on terrestrial channels, unfortunately.

History Channel, Discovery Channel. I especially am starting to hate these crime lab shows, used to watch them but now its getting annoying.

Yes, I know the ones you mean. Some of them type of docu's are becoming politicised.

But you cant go wrong with docu's about wildlife/nature/space/historical events

[heavycola]

As I said earlier in the thread, the Television wins this hands down. It is poisonous.

I never watch TV unless a good footy match is on, and I despise immensley people who watch it for 'reality TV' and 'Soaps'.

I agree, except that I watch documentaries on TV sometimes.

Agreed!

Documentaries are great, but they generally aren't shown that often on terrestrial channels, unfortunately.

History Channel, Discovery Channel. I especially am starting to hate these crime lab shows, used to watch them but now its getting annoying.

Yes, I know the ones you mean. Some of them type of docu's are becoming politicised.

But you cant go wrong with docu's about wildlife/nature/space/historical events

or german lesbians

[unriggable]

As I said earlier in the thread, the Television wins this hands down. It is poisonous.

I never watch TV unless a good footy match is on, and I despise immensley people who watch it for 'reality TV' and 'Soaps'.

I agree, except that I watch documentaries on TV sometimes.

Agreed!

Documentaries are great, but they generally aren't shown that often on terrestrial channels, unfortunately.

History Channel, Discovery Channel. I especially am starting to hate these crime lab shows, used to watch them but now its getting annoying.

Yes, I know the ones you mean. Some of them type of docu's are becoming politicised.

But you cant go wrong with docu's about wildlife/nature/space/historical events

I'm not too keen on the historical events ones, since the re-enactments bug me alot (I saw one about troy the other day and the achilles / hector battle was nothing short of laughable)

[Norse]

As I said earlier in the thread, the Television wins this hands down. It is poisonous.

I never watch TV unless a good footy match is on, and I despise immensley people who watch it for 'reality TV' and 'Soaps'.

I agree, except that I watch documentaries on TV sometimes.

Agreed!

Documentaries are great, but they generally aren't shown that often on terrestrial channels, unfortunately.

History Channel, Discovery Channel. I especially am starting to hate these crime lab shows, used to watch them but now its getting annoying.

Yes, I know the ones you mean. Some of them type of docu's are becoming politicised.

But you cant go wrong with docu's about wildlife/nature/space/historical events

I'm not too keen on the historical events ones, since the re-enactments bug me alot (I saw one about troy the other day and the achilles / hector battle was nothing short of laughable)

Well, I see what you mean, most historical perspectives are merely fabrication, but anyone with half a brain can see through the bollox.

[cawck mongler]

A hyena eating it's fill isn't competition, or greed, this is simple survival.
Killing those gazelle is competition, not greed.

Greed is taking far more than you need. Using your hyena example this would be the hyenas killing another few hundred gazelle, eating only a tiny amount and leaving the rest to rot.
The hyena's will not do this, because they know they do not need the extra meat.
There is no possible advantage from killing hundreds of gazelle unecessarilary, and that is why it is clasified as Greed.
In human terms this would be an already very rich landlord upping rent on a building that houses very poor people. The amount of extra money will be negligable, therefore no significant advantage will be gained for the landlord, but the tennants will suffer significantly.

Wolverines kill for fun and the reason Lions don't kill hundreds of Gazelle (hyenas are scavengers I believe, they might be able to effectively hunt Gazelle), is because there's nothing in it for them and it would create extra work. A rich landlord still benefits from razing taxes, as there are always better things he can buy with it. If lions got a umbrella that they could lay under for shade for every ten extra Gazelle they killed, they'd kill more Gazelle to get that umbrella.

Animals are exactly like humans, in fact, humans are animals, we just developed better and that allowed us to start taking more then we need from the environment, I'm sure that there are other animals with edges over their competition, that also take more then they need. If you can tell me one thing that makes us so different then animals (a logical thing that isn't just pointing out our successes in adapting to our environment, other animals use tools to, they just wern't suited for developing them to the extent that we have), then I'll drop my argument.

Yes, the only way to stop environmental damage completly is to stop doing any industry at all. But that isn't what I was talking about. What I was talking about is the way Capitalism encourages the use of very environmentally unsafe methods.
A few years back (or so i've heard) electric cars were being developed and were nearing economic viability. Suddenly, all research and backing for them stopped. Why? Because the oil companies realised that it would put them out of buisness.
If they hadn't done that, then it very likely that there would be practical, safe, efficient electric cars available today. As it is, the old gas-guzzlers are only slowly starting to go out of fasion now.
Alternative energy sources are also being suppressed. Why? Because then humanity would have no incentive to use dirty, cheap coal or Natural Gas power stations.

No matter how well you may deny Capitalism's social problems, there is no way you can get around its environmental problems.

And why would you think that stopping governments competing is a bad thing? Everyone justifies Capitalism by linking it to evolution. "Survival of the fittest" and all that stuff. What no-one realises is that competition isn't the only way to do things. As I have said before, the reason this planet has adopted competition is Earth is a very resource and energy rich planet. If there were much less free resources available, say, because a species of obnoxious homonids were using a significant percentage up, then life would drop competition like a hot rock.

Let me start of by saying that the social problems created through capitalism are normal, humans are a pack animal and like other animals we have 'alpha males', who get more then the rest of the group. Because of the amount of luxury in our lives, the difference between common people and the elite is greater then in other species.

Capitalism encourages efficiency and development. True, we could save resources if we were to switch to communism, but communism would never work, unless the whole world was united under one communist government, because the inefficiency of a communist government would force the ham fisted officials to start sacrificing human life in order to keep pace with the more efficient capitalist governments. I have to stop here, sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what alternative government you're proposing to capitalism, other then one with no competition (communism), which has very drastic flaws and can't be implemented (in which case mixed market, what I'm arguing for, wins). If you're trying to say some kind of variant of communism is better, then explain it, but everyone knows communism is an epic fail and I'm not going to explain why.

And another thing to argue with your 'animals only take what they need' thing. Billionaires like Bill Gates have higher chances of having sex and passing on their genes then people who just make enough to get by, they also have a higher chance of survival (they can afford better medicine etc.), that means that he still needs it in terms of fulfilling his instincts, sure he's taking it at the expense of others, but people and animals arn't supposed to look after each other, they're supposed to look after themselves. If animals only took as much as they needed, then they'd live live on the edge of starvation, but like humans, if given the chance they'd eat until they're full, because their bodies are telling them to eat more then just enough to survive. You're arguing that it would benefit mankind to implement an impossible economic system and that there's a fixed line on how much is too much and that animals would never cross that line, but humans, for some mysterious reason, would.

[Kugelblitz22]

humans are a pack animal and like other animals we have 'alpha males', who get more then the rest of the group.

Good to know. What is your source for this information so I can check it out please?

[Norse]

humans are a pack animal and like other animals we have 'alpha males', who get more then the rest of the group.

Good to know. What is your source for this information so I can check it out please?

LOL, well this is a fact.

But every mammal animal group have these kind of hierarchal system.

The one difference between humans and every other living creature, is that we will continue to multiply and multiply, whereas other animal groups tend to balance off at a level.

[cawck mongler]

humans are a pack animal and like other animals we have 'alpha males', who get more then the rest of the group.

Good to know. What is your source for this information so I can check it out please?

Look it up on wikipedia, I thought it was common knowledge though (and it should be). In ancient times people formed groups because they couldn't survive on their own and today we have families and cities, this is because we have a pack mentality and it's a natural way for us to survive, other animals like squerrils or something don't hunt for nuts in packs or whatever.

[cawck mongler]

LOL, well this is a fact.

But every mammal animal group have these kind of hierarchal system.

The one difference between humans and every other living creature, is that we will continue to multiply and multiply, whereas other animal groups tend to balance off at a level.

That's because we developed better then other animals and we've managed to manipulate the environment to benefit us. This isn't because of some divine reason, its because we got lucky and developed the way we did (the opposable thumbs and whatever else, I'm no expert on this kind of thing).

There's nothing telling animals not to reproduce beyond some arbitrary limit, if they produce beyond what there environment can hold they'll starve to death and if they get to crowded then disease will kill them (like the plague in Europe, it came about because of unsanitary and cramped living conditions). Humans are able to exploit more then they should out of the environment, and if we become to much for our environment to sustain, then we'll starve or kill ourselves some other way. It's nothing new.

[Neutrino]

Wolverines kill for fun and the reason Lions don't kill hundreds of Gazelle (hyenas are scavengers I believe, they might be able to effectively hunt Gazelle), is because there's nothing in it for them and it would create extra work. A rich landlord still benefits from razing taxes, as there are always better things he can buy with it. If lions got a umbrella that they could lay under for shade for every ten extra Gazelle they killed, they'd kill more Gazelle to get that umbrella.

Do you have a source for that Wolverine thing?
Again, all your examples involve some kind of advantage for those killing others. This is competition.

Competition = Your advantage, others disadvantage.
Greed = No advantage to you, others disadvantage.

Animals are exactly like humans, in fact, humans are animals, we just developed better and that allowed us to start taking more then we need from the environment, I'm sure that there are other animals with edges over their competition, that also take more then they need. If you can tell me one thing that makes us so different then animals (a logical thing that isn't just pointing out our successes in adapting to our environment, other animals use tools to, they just wern't suited for developing them to the extent that we have), then I'll drop my argument.

Just off the top of my head, I would have to say that the ability to have empathy for strangers, even when it doesn't give an immediate advantage, is one of the major things that seperates us from animals.
If you saw a stranger, injured on the street (and you wern't one of those people who just stood and took pictures) you would go and help, if at all possible. Animals wouldn't do this; if the injured animal wasn't a member of their pack then they would consider it a source of food.

Let me start of by saying that the social problems created through capitalism are normal, humans are a pack animal and like other animals we have 'alpha males', who get more then the rest of the group. Because of the amount of luxury in our lives, the difference between common people and the elite is greater then in other species.

But shouldn't we be trying it improve humanity in general? Not just saying "Ahh well, we evolved that way. Nothing we can do about it". That type of social structure may be good enough for non-sentient creatures, but once you include higher brain functions in the equation, the entire thing fails.

Capitalism encourages efficiency and development.

Not really. I would say the exact opposite. Capitalism is like having several people try to climb a mountain by pulling eachother down.
The one who gets to the top first will be the best, but the sheer amount of time and energy wasted will more than make up for this advantage.

True, we could save resources if we were to switch to communism, but communism would never work, unless the whole world was united under one communist government, because the inefficiency of a communist government would force the ham fisted officials to start sacrificing human life in order to keep pace with the more efficient capitalist governments. I have to stop here, sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what alternative government you're proposing to capitalism, other then one with no competition (communism), which has very drastic flaws and can't be implemented (in which case mixed market, what I'm arguing for, wins). If you're trying to say some kind of variant of communism is better, then explain it, but everyone knows communism is an epic fail and I'm not going to explain why.

I'm not arguing for anything, i'm simply arguing against Capitalim. Since I am not a Social Scientist (or whatever they are called) I cannot make accurate predictions on how well various systems will work, although your mixed market idea does sound as though it has some potential.

And another thing to argue with your 'animals only take what they need' thing. Billionaires like Bill Gates have higher chances of having sex and passing on their genes then people who just make enough to get by, they also have a higher chance of survival (they can afford better medicine etc.), that means that he still needs it in terms of fulfilling his instincts, sure he's taking it at the expense of others, but people and animals arn't supposed to look after each other, they're supposed to look after themselves. If animals only took as much as they needed, then they'd live live on the edge of starvation, but like humans, if given the chance they'd eat until they're full, because their bodies are telling them to eat more then just enough to survive. You're arguing that it would benefit mankind to implement an impossible economic system and that there's a fixed line on how much is too much and that animals would never cross that line, but humans, for some mysterious reason, would.

Of course having a lot of money gives an advantage. Everyone wants lots of money because this will give them an edge over the competition.

Say, for arguments sake, that Bill Gates has 100 Billion dollars. Now just say he notices a homeless person on the street with a $100 note. If he takes the $100 note, it is greed, since having $100 000 000 100 is barely any improvement over having $100 000 000 000. The amount of advatage Bill Gates gained by taking that $100 is so small it is negligable, but the amount of disadvantage he did to the homeless person is huge.
This is greed.

[unriggable]

humans are a pack animal and like other animals we have 'alpha males', who get more then the rest of the group.

Good to know. What is your source for this information so I can check it out please?

The theory of evolution. It's why people are inclined to do things that they know in their hearts to be wrong when they are told by a dominant figure.

[magneticgoop]

Yeh but the general point is that religion 'brainwashes' the masses into believing what those men tell them because it creates a hierarchy with control, inessence, over your eternal wellfare. The concept of religion acted as both an excuse and a motivation. You can look today at extremist Islam as another example of the concept of religion being twisted and bastardised into a violent form. It is a bit like the opium of Karl Marx fame ... it can be used for practical purposes (as medical pain relief) but also as a destructive drug which drives people to kill for it.

well my point is that any ruling body can abuse it's power, it is not religion, government or society specific. but i think you got my piont

[cawck mongler]

[quote="Neutrino"][/quote]

fail troll fails I'm afraid to say

[Jenos Ridan]

Anyway, he seems to have givern up on the history thing, which was probably wise.

Mostly because you seem to be as stubborn as I am. The problem; while I admit bias, you don't. But we could debate that beleaguered point until we end up like HuckleberryHound's Avatar.

(tried to post it, and failed)

[Neutrino]

fail troll fails I'm afraid to say