• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prospect of life in deep space as Nasa probe finds hundreds of new planets

I would suggest looking here. It's a good starting place, at least.

Ah, I see.. Why only three posts to that thread? It was made ten days ago? Maybe everyone on DP is incapable of understanding the science, eh? I particularly liked your summary. Too bad Deuce is wrong, and not just by a little.. :)

I'll post to that thread as my time permits. I have no use for none sense like that ordinarily, but I "might" take some time to at least correct the record. I'll give you a hint though to chew on. think "heat absorption by C02".. LOL, and I found it funny that Duece actually said "physiscs 101"..


Tim-
 
The problem with what you provided in the link is that it is saying family planning for areas that are growing rapidly. What is left out is that some of those areas that grow rapidly are because of the emigres from other areas. So while one area grows rapidly another four or five or more areas shrink because of that fast growing area and the ones who stay behind are the old. It is not like everyone who moves there is going to be having 20 kids. If anything urban areas are a Godsend to humanity. Why? Because urban areas encourage smaller things but a material lifestyle. As a result people who move to cities are not likely to have many children which means that the population won't grow as fast.

Quit painting a doomsday picture. Life is hard and it has never been easy and there has always been bad things happening not only to "nature" but to us as well. In the end the planet will decide what to do with us. Regardless if we change and become a 100% recycled society in all nations the planet might just choose to enter into an ice age period or something that will erode hundreds of thousands if not millions of people faster than a blink of the eye.
I said: "I'm not talking about whether what we've done is ethical or not - for now, at least - all I'm saying is that it's fairly undeniable that we've done it in the first place."

I'm not painting 'doom and gloom'. I'm just saying what we've done. If you feel guilty about it enough to defend it, that's entirely your own doing - you might want to consider why that is.

As for the planet 'deciding' what to do with us - although I disagree with the personification, I agree that the climate may, one day, change becasue of something other than us. However, at the moment, it's our fault - and personally, if we're facing an ice age (not that I'm saying this might happen soon....), I'd consider the more time to prepare the better.

Ah, I see.. Why only three posts to that thread? It was made ten days ago? Maybe everyone on DP is incapable of understanding the science, eh? I particularly liked your summary. Too bad Deuce is wrong, and not just by a little..

I'll post to that thread as my time permits. I have no use for none sense like that ordinarily, but I "might" take some time to at least correct the record. I'll give you a hint though to chew on. think "heat absorption by C02".. LOL, and I found it funny that Duece actually said "physiscs 101"..
I'll wait for your reply in that thread then. Don't want to go offtopic on this one or anything!*

*Yes, that was deliberately ironic
 
Last edited:
I'll wait for your reply in that thread then. Don't want to go offtopic on this one or anything!*


Agreed..


Tim-
 
Wow! You are showing something natural of a human, hatred for something different than you. What exactly is wrong with America? Are we more realists than the rest of the world?

What? How is that showing hatred?

There are places in the world where people are living the ways that Goshin claim is not possible, but he lives in America so he cannot see those realities. It's not hateful to point out the obvious.

We can not control them. There will always be bursts of rage, hatred, and other deviant behavior. It is something natural.

It's not that we cannot, it's that we don't want to. It's much easier to give in to those baser instincts than examine them for what they are: our animal natures. Clearly we have some level of control, as we are still sitting here typing to one another and our countries haven't blown each other up. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to picture us working together for the betterment of all?

I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Humans have been predicting their own end since we have been on this planet. Nothing apocalypto is going to happen. Take it easy.

This kind of hubris is exactly why a good conversation of the kinds of things I'm talking about is not possible. Too many people think they know everything, so their minds are not open. They think they're in control but they're not. This is the plague of the human race. It is very easy to dismiss that which makes us uncomfortable, or that which presents a reality that we would sooner be in denial about.

I do not believe you understand how indoctrination works. But it is ok.

It is the sign of a poor debater when they turn the debate into a discussion about the opponent, instead of the ideas they present. Indoctrination implies that I was coerced with propaganda to hold the views that I do. Nothing is further from the truth, and since you don't know me, I suggest you avoid such audacious assumptions.

You are not a realist. You are making predictable statements, do not get me wrong.

My statements are predictable to you because you have probably heard such notions coming from the mouths of truly hysterical people who truly are indoctrinated, and you are assuming I am just like them. This isn't your fault. It is the mind trap of categorical thinking to draw comparisons between two unrelated things based on superficial observations.

I know you are a smart kid.

I'm not a kid.

We are a degenerate species and we have never acted in a good manner.

I don't agree. Humans have done many good things and I have been alive to see some of them.

If anything what you are living through now has been one of the best if not the best time for a human to live as of our whole existence.

I agree that I am benefiting from living standards that I would not have seen if I was even born 100 years ago, but the benefits are just a facade. Unlike most people, I have traveled the world and seen the real costs of what it means to live the way we do. We are 5% of the world in this living standard, and we consume all the resources to do it. In the western world we have enjoyed luxuries and lassitude lifestyles that would be the envy of even the richest rulers of empires 500 years ago. But what is the net progress that has been made here? If the fossil fuels ever stop running, none of it will mean anything. Our society will collapse in weeks. It is all propped up on hot air, however magnificent it may seem. It is this delusion that is pervasive in our culture, that we are somehow the apex. Things are always changing. We are changing. Nothing is static. Everything we do has an impact. It is preposterous to suggest that our actions have no consequences, whether they be good or bad.

We are making progress and we will not stop.

I agree, but that will not look anything like the current paradigm. The industrial era has been but a millesecond of human history, and it has held the greatest costs to us as a species. We cannot sustain it without major advancements and overhauls. We need to change the very way we think, and that is not something that ever happens overnight. I think at this point, progress would be returning to local, sustainable economy, but with the knowledge of nature, technology, and medicine that we have achieved through the destructive eras that preceded.

However, progress is not in the way people behave but in what advances a small group of individuals make for the rest of the species.

I disagree. Advances are meaningless if people behave the same, otherwise we are not using those advances to further understand our own nature or place in the universe. Advances without spiritual questions pertaining to the material essence of what and who we are as a people are completely meaningless and only bring momentary gratification. We live in an era of momentary impulse. Our landfills attest to that. Stuff bought and stuff tossed for new stuff. We are practically swimming in disease because of our own polluted filth, and the root of that problem has never, ever been a lack of technology to solve it. The problems are intrinsically within us... the nature of our desires, our refusal to look inward, and our incessant child-like need to look to the outside world as a means to rearrange our internal issues. Our entire era... this entire paradigm of thinking... is rooted in THAT, and nothing else.

A politician does not change the world for the greater good, a scientist does. A politician is most likely to destroy the planet and that is something bad.

I don't think it's so cut and dry. Scientists make discoveries, even deadly ones, while absolving themselves of responsibility for how the discoveries are used, since they are only "seeking knowledge". Politicians of this era are increasingly corrupt because we live in degenerate times; but even though our historical focus has apparently been human violence as a legacy, there are plenty of civilizations in the past that had tempered, wise leaders who knew how to hold balance. They were destroyed by other societies who lacked this knowledge of sacred balance, but that doesn't mean they were failures. On the contrary, it proves that humans are capable of overcoming their animal half.
 
What? How is that showing hatred?

There are places in the world where people are living the ways that Goshin claim is not possible, but he lives in America so he cannot see those realities. It's not hateful to point out the obvious.



It's not that we cannot, it's that we don't want to. It's much easier to give in to those baser instincts than examine them for what they are: our animal natures. Clearly we have some level of control, as we are still sitting here typing to one another and our countries haven't blown each other up. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to picture us working together for the betterment of all?



This kind of hubris is exactly why a good conversation of the kinds of things I'm talking about is not possible. Too many people think they know everything, so their minds are not open. They think they're in control but they're not. This is the plague of the human race. It is very easy to dismiss that which makes us uncomfortable, or that which presents a reality that we would sooner be in denial about.



It is the sign of a poor debater when they turn the debate into a discussion about the opponent, instead of the ideas they present. Indoctrination implies that I was coerced with propaganda to hold the views that I do. Nothing is further from the truth, and since you don't know me, I suggest you avoid such audacious assumptions.



My statements are predictable to you because you have probably heard such notions coming from the mouths of truly hysterical people who truly are indoctrinated, and you are assuming I am just like them. This isn't your fault. It is the mind trap of categorical thinking to draw comparisons between two unrelated things based on superficial observations.



I'm not a kid.



I don't agree. Humans have done many good things and I have been alive to see some of them.



I agree that I am benefiting from living standards that I would not have seen if I was even born 100 years ago, but the benefits are just a facade. Unlike most people, I have traveled the world and seen the real costs of what it means to live the way we do. We are 5% of the world in this living standard, and we consume all the resources to do it. In the western world we have enjoyed luxuries and lassitude lifestyles that would be the envy of even the richest rulers of empires 500 years ago. But what is the net progress that has been made here? If the fossil fuels ever stop running, none of it will mean anything. Our society will collapse in weeks. It is all propped up on hot air, however magnificent it may seem. It is this delusion that is pervasive in our culture, that we are somehow the apex. Things are always changing. We are changing. Nothing is static. Everything we do has an impact. It is preposterous to suggest that our actions have no consequences, whether they be good or bad.



I agree, but that will not look anything like the current paradigm. The industrial era has been but a millesecond of human history, and it has held the greatest costs to us as a species. We cannot sustain it without major advancements and overhauls. We need to change the very way we think, and that is not something that ever happens overnight. I think at this point, progress would be returning to local, sustainable economy, but with the knowledge of nature, technology, and medicine that we have achieved through the destructive eras that preceded.



I disagree. Advances are meaningless if people behave the same, otherwise we are not using those advances to further understand our own nature or place in the universe. Advances without spiritual questions pertaining to the material essence of what and who we are as a people are completely meaningless and only bring momentary gratification. We live in an era of momentary impulse. Our landfills attest to that. Stuff bought and stuff tossed for new stuff. We are practically swimming in disease because of our own polluted filth, and the root of that problem has never, ever been a lack of technology to solve it. The problems are intrinsically within us... the nature of our desires, our refusal to look inward, and our incessant child-like need to look to the outside world as a means to rearrange our internal issues. Our entire era... this entire paradigm of thinking... is rooted in THAT, and nothing else.



I don't think it's so cut and dry. Scientists make discoveries, even deadly ones, while absolving themselves of responsibility for how the discoveries are used, since they are only "seeking knowledge". Politicians of this era are increasingly corrupt because we live in degenerate times; but even though our historical focus has apparently been human violence as a legacy, there are plenty of civilizations in the past that had tempered, wise leaders who knew how to hold balance. They were destroyed by other societies who lacked this knowledge of sacred balance, but that doesn't mean they were failures. On the contrary, it proves that humans are capable of overcoming their animal half.

Actually, Rome was destroyed from within, long before the barbarians sacked her.
 
Actually, Rome was destroyed from within, long before the barbarians sacked her.

I don't consider Rome to be one of the societies that I was referring to.
 
We are NOT alone in the Universe, but we might as well be.[...]
We are NOT alone in the Universe, but we ARE, which is plenty reason to take care of what we have.

You keep saying we're not alone in the universe, but so far I don't see any evidence to back that up. The latest exoplanet research is fascinating, of course, but there is no evidence whatsoever of life anywhere else. It's just as likely that abiogenesis only ever happened once in the entire history of the universe, here on Earth. That's certainly the only place we have any evidence that it ever happened.

Again, it's fascinating stuff, but leaping to conclusions like "we're not alone" just because there are a bunch of planets with water is unscientific.
 
Something is seriously fishy about the OP's article. At first I thought it was great, but if this news were true it would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries of our century but so far the only sources I've found to covering it are the Toronto Sun, and Fox news....
 
You keep saying we're not alone in the universe, but so far I don't see any evidence to back that up. The latest exoplanet research is fascinating, of course, but there is no evidence whatsoever of life anywhere else. It's just as likely that abiogenesis only ever happened once in the entire history of the universe, here on Earth. That's certainly the only place we have any evidence that it ever happened.

Again, it's fascinating stuff, but leaping to conclusions like "we're not alone" just because there are a bunch of planets with water is unscientific.
as vast as the universe is, it is hard not to think that somewhere out there, some form of life exists.
 
as vast as the universe is, it is hard not to think that somewhere out there, some form of life exists.

Well, sure, but you need to keep your imagination differentiated from science. It could be that life is common, it could be that life only ever occurred once. It all depends on how common it is for life to spring from non-life, and we just don't understand that process well enough to make conclusions about how common it might be elsewhere.

Something is seriously fishy about the OP's article. At first I thought it was great, but if this news were true it would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries of our century but so far the only sources I've found to covering it are the Toronto Sun, and Fox news....

Well, isn't it just repeating old news? We've known about exoplanets for a long time, I remember reading about rocky Earthlike exoplanets in Discover magazine like ten years ago.
 
as vast as the universe is, it is hard not to think that somewhere out there, some form of life exists.

Exactly. If only one in a trillion stars had planets, and if only one in a trillion stars with planets had life, and if only one in a trillion stars that have planets AND life had intelligent life, you would still have more than a trillion planets with civilizations of some kind.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. If only one in a trillion stars had planets, and if only one in a trillion stars with planets had life, and if only one in a trillion stars that have planets AND life had intelligent life, you would still have more than a trillion planets with civilizations.

Right, even granting that your math is correct there, where's the evidence that there's even a one in a trillion chance of developing on a planet? Who's to say the chance isn't one in a trillion to the trillionth power? Maybe there is something unique about the mechanism of abiogenesis that it can only happen once is the entire universe? We just don't know, so assumptions like a "one in a trillion" chance are scientifically faulty.

Not to take the wind out of your sails, I mean I love science fiction too, but there is a difference between science and speculation.
 
Last edited:
There is probably, definitely, other life out there, but whether or not we are capable of interacting with it is another story. Life may be very common. As for the question of sapience... I think it is difficult to know because we have no real reference for sapience. Are we really that smart? Or are we super smart?

One dot (us) does not form a pattern, nor would two dots. We would need many to establish what sapience even means.
 
There is probably, definitely, other life out there, but whether or not we are capable of interacting with it is another story. Life may be very common. As for the question of sapience... I think it is difficult to know because we have no real reference for sapience. Are we really that smart? Or are we super smart?

One dot (us) does not form a pattern, nor would two dots. We would need many to establish what sapience even means.

Ok, now apply the logic of the bolded sentence and apply it to this one: "There is probably, definitely, other life out there." Where are you getting that assumption from, where is your evidence?

You say that we have no real reference for sapience, but we also have no real reference for abiogenesis, that is a more pressing problem. Before we worry about how smart all those aliens we're presupposing might be, we have to worry about whether or not it is even possible that they exist.
 
Ok, now apply the logic of the bolded sentence and apply it to this one: "There is probably, definitely, other life out there." Where are you getting that assumption from, where is your evidence?

I acknowledged that it's more of an educated guess, but I base it upon the diverse range of life we have here on earth, living in even the most extreme conditions. At the turn of the 20th century, our question was, "Where can life exist?" The definition kept expanding, and now the question has become, "Where does life not exist?" I mean, there are even bacteria deep in the earth that never see the light of day. They just feed on thermal energy and its byproducts.

I find it highly unlikely that we would be the only life in the universe.

You say that we have no real reference for sapience, but we also have no real reference for abiogenesis, that is a more pressing problem. Before we worry about how smart all those aliens we're presupposing might be, we have to worry about whether or not it is even possible that they exist.

We have no reference for abiogenesis, but we can always assume the very basic fact: life happened somehow. Just because we don't know the origin doesn't mean that life is such a shot in the dark. If God created us, abiogenesis and evolution, or a meteor slamming into earth, or aliens with their weird science projects, or random cosmic rays, etc... the fact remains that life came about somehow, and however that happened, it can surely happen elsewhere. Even if we are a freak occurrence, the universe is incomprehensibly huge and there is surely somewhere where the same set of conditions are bound to unfold.
 
I acknowledged that it's more of an educated guess, but I base it upon the diverse range of life we have here on earth, living in even the most extreme conditions. At the turn of the 20th century, our question was, "Where can life exist?" The definition kept expanding, and now the question has become, "Where does life not exist?" I mean, there are even bacteria deep in the earth that never see the light of day. They just feed on thermal energy and its byproducts.

I find it highly unlikely that we would be the only life in the universe.

But all that life developed from one instance of abiogenesis, and you have no evidence that it is possible for that to occur more than once. So speculating about it isn't really an educated guess at all, it's just a guess.

We have no reference for abiogenesis, but we can always assume the very basic fact: life happened somehow. Just because we don't know the origin doesn't mean that life is such a shot in the dark. If God created us, abiogenesis and evolution, or a meteor slamming into earth, or aliens with their weird science projects, or random cosmic rays, etc... the fact remains that life came about somehow, and however that happened, it can surely happen elsewhere. Even if we are a freak occurrence, the universe is incomprehensibly huge and there is surely somewhere where the same set of conditions are bound to unfold.

"Life happened somehow" does not entail that "it can surely happen elsewhere." That's a big leap, and you just haven't got the facts to back it up. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but when you start talking about probabilities it's not really coming from any facts, it's just sheer imagination.

Maybe life can't happen elsewhere. Perhaps the odds against it are even more vast than the stars in the universe. Maybe there is something intrinsic to abiogenesis that it can only happen once, at all. Maybe it is as common as dirt. Nobody can say, because we haven't got any facts indicating one way or the other. Speculation in the absence of facts is just bad science.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much it would cost to send just a single probe to get a detailed look at one of these planets. Probably some number that makes the national debt look like pennies, especially if we wanted the results within our grandchildren's lifetimes.

Anyone smarter/nerdier than me willing to speculate?
 
I wonder how much it would cost to send just a single probe to get a detailed look at one of these planets. Probably some number that makes the national debt look like pennies, especially if we wanted the results within our grandchildren's lifetimes.

Anyone smarter/nerdier than me willing to speculate?

I don't think there is any current propulsion system that would reach the closest star in that time span.
Don't think it's currently possible.
 
I don't think there is any current propulsion system that would reach the closest star in that time span.
Don't think it's currently possible.

sure there is, just use the large hadrion collider to launch something into space at 99% of the speed of light, and then watch it go, and hope nothing gets in the way.
 
Use the LHC to launch what into space at 99% the speed of light? An electron? You could also shine a laser pointer at Epsilon Eridani, but I don't know what kind of information you'd be hoping to get back from that.

And, interestingly, there are ways to get to other stars (relatively) quickly. For example:

Project Longshot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, we could send a probe to Alpha Proxima or Alpha Centauri and start gathering information, and that information would be back within our grandchildren's lifetime. A problem, I think, is that the more promising exoplanets are much further than Centauri or Proxima.

And, Orion, you mentioned societies living on Earth who have learned to control their "animal" natures (drive toward greed, violence, etc.), but that Americans just don't know about them:

There are places in the world where people are living the ways that Goshin claim is not possible, but he lives in America so he cannot see those realities.

This intrigues me. What societies would these be? Or have I misunderstood you?

Cheers,

The Black Sheep
 
Last edited:
But all that life developed from one instance of abiogenesis, and you have no evidence that it is possible for that to occur more than once. So speculating about it isn't really an educated guess at all, it's just a guess.



"Life happened somehow" does not entail that "it can surely happen elsewhere." That's a big leap, and you just haven't got the facts to back it up. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but when you start talking about probabilities it's not really coming from any facts, it's just sheer imagination.

Maybe life can't happen elsewhere. Perhaps the odds against it are even more vast than the stars in the universe. Maybe there is something intrinsic to abiogenesis that it can only happen once, at all. Maybe it is as common as dirt. Nobody can say, because we haven't got any facts indicating one way or the other. Speculation in the absence of facts is just bad science.

The odds against our conditions being unique are astronomical. *rimshot* Rough estimates put the number of stars in the universe between 10^22 and 10^24. Simple law of probability tells us there is very likely to be other life out there, or at least there was life out there at some point in the universe's history. (ended by the death of their star) What could possibly make abiogenesis "only able to happen once?" What, the moment the first proteins formed they sent out some sort of magical disruption signal to the entire rest of the universe that ends the same process elsewhere? Yes, we don't know that there's other life out there, but there's an ever-growing body of information telling us that there very probably is.
 
Ok, now apply the logic of the bolded sentence and apply it to this one: "There is probably, definitely, other life out there." Where are you getting that assumption from, where is your evidence?

You say that we have no real reference for sapience, but we also have no real reference for abiogenesis, that is a more pressing problem. Before we worry about how smart all those aliens we're presupposing might be, we have to worry about whether or not it is even possible that they exist.

There's currently no evidence, but I can't think of a single solitary cosmologist, astrophysicist, theoretical physicist, particle physicist, astronomer that thinks that life doesn't exist somewhere else. Humans have only explored a tiny, and I mean TINY portion of our own solar system. I think it is ludicrous that people think life isn't out there somewhere. Now, in terms of intelligent life on the level of our intelligence, you might have some standing, but no life at all? Astronomically illogical.


Tim-
 
What? How is that showing hatred?

There are places in the world where people are living the ways that Goshin claim is not possible, but he lives in America so he cannot see those realities. It's not hateful to point out the obvious.



It's not that we cannot, it's that we don't want to. It's much easier to give in to those baser instincts than examine them for what they are: our animal natures. Clearly we have some level of control, as we are still sitting here typing to one another and our countries haven't blown each other up. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to picture us working together for the betterment of all?



This kind of hubris is exactly why a good conversation of the kinds of things I'm talking about is not possible. Too many people think they know everything, so their minds are not open. They think they're in control but they're not. This is the plague of the human race. It is very easy to dismiss that which makes us uncomfortable, or that which presents a reality that we would sooner be in denial about.



It is the sign of a poor debater when they turn the debate into a discussion about the opponent, instead of the ideas they present. Indoctrination implies that I was coerced with propaganda to hold the views that I do. Nothing is further from the truth, and since you don't know me, I suggest you avoid such audacious assumptions.



My statements are predictable to you because you have probably heard such notions coming from the mouths of truly hysterical people who truly are indoctrinated, and you are assuming I am just like them. This isn't your fault. It is the mind trap of categorical thinking to draw comparisons between two unrelated things based on superficial observations.



I'm not a kid.



I don't agree. Humans have done many good things and I have been alive to see some of them.



I agree that I am benefiting from living standards that I would not have seen if I was even born 100 years ago, but the benefits are just a facade. Unlike most people, I have traveled the world and seen the real costs of what it means to live the way we do. We are 5% of the world in this living standard, and we consume all the resources to do it. In the western world we have enjoyed luxuries and lassitude lifestyles that would be the envy of even the richest rulers of empires 500 years ago. But what is the net progress that has been made here? If the fossil fuels ever stop running, none of it will mean anything. Our society will collapse in weeks. It is all propped up on hot air, however magnificent it may seem. It is this delusion that is pervasive in our culture, that we are somehow the apex. Things are always changing. We are changing. Nothing is static. Everything we do has an impact. It is preposterous to suggest that our actions have no consequences, whether they be good or bad.



I agree, but that will not look anything like the current paradigm. The industrial era has been but a millesecond of human history, and it has held the greatest costs to us as a species. We cannot sustain it without major advancements and overhauls. We need to change the very way we think, and that is not something that ever happens overnight. I think at this point, progress would be returning to local, sustainable economy, but with the knowledge of nature, technology, and medicine that we have achieved through the destructive eras that preceded.



I disagree. Advances are meaningless if people behave the same, otherwise we are not using those advances to further understand our own nature or place in the universe. Advances without spiritual questions pertaining to the material essence of what and who we are as a people are completely meaningless and only bring momentary gratification. We live in an era of momentary impulse. Our landfills attest to that. Stuff bought and stuff tossed for new stuff. We are practically swimming in disease because of our own polluted filth, and the root of that problem has never, ever been a lack of technology to solve it. The problems are intrinsically within us... the nature of our desires, our refusal to look inward, and our incessant child-like need to look to the outside world as a means to rearrange our internal issues. Our entire era... this entire paradigm of thinking... is rooted in THAT, and nothing else.



I don't think it's so cut and dry. Scientists make discoveries, even deadly ones, while absolving themselves of responsibility for how the discoveries are used, since they are only "seeking knowledge". Politicians of this era are increasingly corrupt because we live in degenerate times; but even though our historical focus has apparently been human violence as a legacy, there are plenty of civilizations in the past that had tempered, wise leaders who knew how to hold balance. They were destroyed by other societies who lacked this knowledge of sacred balance, but that doesn't mean they were failures. On the contrary, it proves that humans are capable of overcoming their animal half.


Hmm...

Orion, I don't think there is enough bandwidth on DP to address all of the myriad ways in which you and I view the world from diametrically opposite mindsets. :mrgreen:

I will say this: yes, I live in America. That doesn't mean I've never been elsewhere and seen how others live in other countries. Shouldn't assume, old chap. ;)


Now, I'm intrested in these societies you posit, where anger, fear and greed are kept tightly leashed, where people live in harmony and balance with nature, and "do it right". Could you name a few of them and describe their mode of living?
 
Now, I'm intrested in these societies you posit, where anger, fear and greed are kept tightly leashed, where people live in harmony and balance with nature, and "do it right". Could you name a few of them and describe their mode of living?

4826778452_58a2bc76f8.jpg


These people live as you describe. :giggle:
 
As long as everyone is aware that space belongs to the U.S. It's already our moon.
 
Back
Top Bottom