(Advertisement)

COMMENTARY: Optimism: Give It A Chance, You’ll Like The Result

Posted: March 24, 2013 at 1:53 a.m.

In 1844, the United States had an event known as “The Great Disappointment.” Based upon some novel interpretations of the book of Daniel, thousands of people gave away their possessions in anticipation of Christ’s return that year. Later, groups such as the Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses found their own interpretations to arrive at end-time dates decades later. I grew up in a household (as did my mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother ) where Armageddon was always “just around the corner.” Not believing this was considered a lack of faith, and even having long-term plans (such as going to college to prepare for a career) was strongly discouraged.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 16 on 03/24/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

COMMENTARY: Nuclear Weapons: Pressure Tactics...

In dealing with dangerous nations such as Iran and North Korea, an attitude of wary toughness is appropriate but all too obvious in America’s foreign policy. Respect and un... Read »

Next Story »

LETTERS

The mystery continues I recently wrote about a key. It remains around my neck, a constant reminder that I have a mission to perform. Read »

Darrell points out that modern civilization has suppressed the impact of the four horsemen of the apocalypse: pestilence, war, famine and death.

But, there's an irony here: the dilemma of greenhouse gases.

One can draw parallels between mankind's progressively improving standards of living and the availability of seemingly unlimited sources of energy, fossil fuels, which has driven the "green revolution" and nearly every other aspect of progressive civilization.

Although the consumption of fossil fuels has been of prime importance in advancing civilization, we are now at the point of rapidly diminishing returns as the planetary ecosystem hurtles toward collapse. And with this inevitable collapse will come a resurgence of the four horsemen, stronger and more murderous than ever.

I wish I could be optimistic about it. The science based institutions primarily responsible for defeating disease and famine are telling us what needs to be done right now to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases. It's a message that too many people ignore. We should stop doing that.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

March 24, 2013 at 12:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That'll probably be in the next column Frank:

"Pessimism: Give It A Chance, You Won't Like The Result"

Just kidding!

Actually, this objection was brought up at the January freethinker meeting when a presentation similar to this article was given (entitled: "A Case for Optimism"). Clearly a case for pessimism can be made and it may be a very good one, but concern about the future differs from this article in an important way. This article makes its (clearly selective) case for optimism based upon already accomplished successes. In contrast, the main concerns about global warming (and peak oil for instance) refer to projections about what may happen in the future and contain wide error bars. If we look at some of the concerns and predictions from the left in the '60's-'80's regarding over population, nuclear power and the environment ("Silent Spring"), much of it was astonishingly wrong and exaggerated. I went to a local meeting of lefties on the topic of climate change and some of these same folks were talking about humanity being extinct in 80-100 years due to climate change. I think that's absurd.

I'm no pie in the sky optimist. I think, based upon solid science, we are in for *serious* bumps and shakes in the next few decades and centuries. I'll only be watching for the next 40 years or so. But I am optimistic that our hard won tools given to us by science and the enlightenment will give us a good shot at dealing with them as best as possible (whatever that means),... if we can keep the villagers with the pitchforks at the gate.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 24, 2013 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What about the fourth horseman, war?
Not "just" nuclear bombs but the constant innovations. Space war and GNR---genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics.
The problem is, the wars between developed nations may be fewer but the killing potential makes them an ever mo;re existential threat.
Not terribly impressed with Stephen Pinker, though I have only read short articles, not his books.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...
"Whereas in Pinker’s view there has been a “Long Peace” since the end of the Second World War,[7] in the real world there has been a series of long and devastating U.S. wars: in the Koreas (1950-1953), Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (1954-1975), Iraq (1990-), Afghanistan (2001- or, arguably, 1979-), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1996-), with the heavy direct involvement of U.S. clients from Rwanda (Paul Kagame) and Uganda (Yoweri Museveni) in large-scale Congo killings; and Israel’s outbursts in Lebanon (1982 and 2006), to name a few. There were also very deadly wars in Iran, invaded by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (1980-1988), with Western encouragement and support. And with the stimulus-excuse of 9/11, the U.S. political and “defense” establishment was able to declare a global “War on Terror,” open-ended and still ongoing, to assure that the “Long Peace” would not be interrupted by a conflict that met the Pinkerian standards for a real war."
http://www.zcommunications.org/realit...

Posted by: Coralie

March 24, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

COR: "wars... may be fewer but the killing potential makes them an ever mo;re existential threat.">>

That would be a prediction. And predictions of pessimism, either with regard to war or any of the other horses, have been wrong for some time now.

COR: "Not terribly impressed with Stephen Pinker,...">

Why, too optimistic? He's a Harvard professor and his claims regarding the numbers are based upon peer reviewed science.

COR: [quote] "the “Long Peace” would not be interrupted by a conflict that met the Pinkerian standards for a real war.">>

The article you cite makes the exact mistake the article at the top complains about: it cherry picks and repeats the bad stuff without considering the actual numbers and context of history.

Let me quote Pinker and Goldstein in their NYT's article: "War Really Is Going Out of Style"

***
"Armed conflict hasn’t vanished, and today anyone with a mobile phone can broadcast the bloodshed. But our impressions of the prevalence of war, stoked by these images, can be misleading. Only objective numbers can identify the trends...

These prototypical wars [conflicts that cause at least 1,000 battle deaths in a year] have become increasingly rare, and the world hasn’t seen one since the three-week invasion of Iraq in 2003. The lopsided five-day clash between Russia and Georgia in 2008 misses the threshold, as do sporadic clashes between North and South Korea or Thailand and Cambodia. ....

Chinese leaders would deserve a similar workup if they blew off the very basis of their legitimacy, namely trade-based prosperity, by starting a war. (China has not fought a battle in 23 years.) India and Pakistan came dangerously close to war in 2002, but they backed off when both sides realized that millions would die and have since stabilized relations...

What about other kinds of armed conflict, like civil wars and conflicts that miss the 1,000-death cutoff? Remarkably, they too have been in decline. Civil wars are fewer, smaller and more localized. Terrible flare-ups occur, and for those caught in the middle the results are devastating — but far fewer people are caught in the middle. The biggest continuing war, in Afghanistan, last year killed about 500 Americans, 100 other coalition troops and 5,000 Afghans including civilians. That toll, while deplorable, is a fraction of those in past wars like Vietnam, which killed 5,000 Americans and nearly 150,000 Vietnamese per year. Over all, the annual rate of battle deaths worldwide has fallen from almost 300 per 100,000 of world population during World War II, to almost 30 during Korea, to the low teens during Vietnam, to single digits in the late 1970s and 1980s, to fewer than 1 in the 21st century.

As the political scientist John Mueller has pointed out, today’s civil wars are closer to organized crime than traditional war...."
http://tinyurl.com/bjdqyop

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 24, 2013 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

More Dr. Pinker, from an NPR interview. I encourage you to read the whole thing here:

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/1432858...

Excerpt:

***
CONAN: Yet we always hear: the 20th century, the most violent, the bloodiest century in human history.

PINKER: Well, people who make that claim never cite numbers from any century other than the 20th, and as Joshua Goldstein has pointed out, the 17th century with its wars of religion, the 14th century with its Mongol invasions, many other centuries have atrocities that can hold their head high when compared against the 20th century.

The annihilation of native peoples of the Americas and Australia and Africa, the Islamic and Atlantic slave trades racked up horrific death tolls."

...

"PINKER: Yes, but it's completely misleading to say that nothing has changed since Korea. If you simply say wars exist now, wars existed then, well, that's true. But if you look at how many people get killed in the war, there's just no comparison.

You plot the numbers on a graph, and they absolutely plummet. Just, if you take just American civilians - soldiers alone, we're comparing, say, 58,000 in Vietnam to something more like 5,500 in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That's a factor of 10, and that's two wars over almost a decade.

The same story is true if you look at the number of, say, Koreans killed and Vietnamese killed compared to the number of Iraqis and Afghanis killed. You really have to look at the numbers, and if you go by the headlines, if you go by anecdotes from memory, you're going to get a very misleading impression about how dangerous the world is."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 24, 2013 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The great question of life is not the question of death, but the question of life. Fear of death shames us all."---Edward Abbey

The article above by the piano tuner can be sumed up in two sentences.

1. The have been a bunch of religious nuts that predicted the end of the world.
2. The world is getting better for humans.

"Will your long-winded speeches never end? What ails you that you keep on arguing?"---Job 16:3

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 24, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Will your long-winded speeches never end?"

Here's a better question: Will Moneym ever bother to produce a post that is actually worth reading?
I doubt it.

D.
--------------
"Some say I am too skeptical, but I doubt it."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 24, 2013 at 5:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


MM:
"The great question of life is not the question of death, but the question of life. Fear of death shames us all."---Edward Abbey

That is why Jesus said "occupy till I come" I am just occupying for now. I am not fearful of death, not when the best is yet to come.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 24, 2013 at 6:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There's little reason to be fearful of death since it's inevitable for all humans. However, I was raised somewhat skeptical and if a deal (10% of income for my life) offers me a payoff only after I die they I'm immediately suspicious.

Good column Darrell. But, you didn't address overpopulation. We can feed ourselves much better now than 60 yrs ago, arrest or cure most diseases which means we live longer and there's more of us.

Anyone ventured an optimum population for Earth? I'm sure it depends upon an intelligent use of resources.

Posted by: cdawg

March 25, 2013 at 3:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Apocolomania
-Now that is a cool word.

Jehovah's Witnesses are a carry over of William Millers Adventist 1844 'great disappointment' end times.
Actual news releases on Jehovahs Witnesses Armageddon 1975 prediction
http://www.dannyhaszard.com/colitis.htm
--
Danny Haszard (been there)

Posted by: Danny_Haszard

March 25, 2013 at 3:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"All the worlds's a stage
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts."---Shakespere (As You Like It)

"There comes a time in the life of us all when we must lay aside our books or put down our tools and leave our place of work and walk forth on the road to meet the enemy face-to-face. Once and for all and at last."---Edward Abbey

"I'll not be here when Jesus comes for me
I'll be in my grave way down there
Some crying, six carrying me, you see
Just laying there without a care.

Until an angel finds me laying there
And wakes me from the eternal doze
Said I had an appointment in the air
With the first one that ever rose.

There I stood all dressed in white
Where was I, could this be Hell?
Then I saw there was no more night
Because of the light, I knew all was well.

Then Jesus said to me, "Well done"
And I knew I was at home.
The final battle had been won
By Jesus and Jesus alone.---ME

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 25, 2013 at 3:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ME - Good poem.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 25, 2013 at 7:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tom Lehrer: We Will All Go Together When We Go

I am reminded at this point of a fellow I used to know who's name was henry, only to give you an idea of what an individualist he was he spelt it hen3ry. the 3 was silent, you see. henry was finally independent having inherited his father's tar-and-feather business and was therefore able to devote his full time to such intellectual pursuits as writing. I particularly remember a heart-warming
Novel of his about a young necropheliac who finally achieved his boy-hood ambition by becoming coroner.

The rest of you can look it up when you get home. in addition to writing he indulged in a good deal of philosophizing. like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful
advice to people who were happier than he was. one particular bit of advice which I recall, which is the reason I bring up this whole, dreary story is something he said once before they took him away to the massachussetts state home for the bewilderd. he said: "life is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it." it's always seems to me that this is precisely
Sort of dynamic, positive thinking that we so desperately need in these trying times of crisis and universal broo-ha-ha, and so with this in mind I have here a modern positive dynamic uplifting
In the tradition of the great old revival hymns. this one might more accurately be termed a survival hymn.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 25, 2013 at 12:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

When you attend a funeral,
It is sad to think that sooner or
Later those you love will do the same for you.
And you may have thought it tragic,
Not to mention other adjec-
Tives, to think of all the weeping they will do.
But don't you worry.
No more ashes, no more sackcloth.
And an armband made of black cloth
Will some day never more adorn a sleeve.
For if the bomb that drops on you
Gets your friends and neighbors too,
There'll be nobody left behind to grieve.

And we will all go together when we go.
What a comforting fact that is to know.
Universal bereavement,
An inspiring achievement,
Yes, we all will go together when we go.

We will all go together when we go.
All suffuse with an incandescent glow.
No one will have the endurance
To collect on his insurance,
Lloyd's of london will be loaded when they go.

Oh we will all fry together when we fry.
We'll be french fried potatoes by and by.
There will be no more misery
When the world is our rotisserie,
Yes, we will all fry together when we fry.

Down by the old maelstrom,
There'll be a storm before the calm.

And we will all bake together when we bake.
There'll be nobody present at the wake.
With complete participation
In that grand incineration,
Nearly three billion hunks of well-done steak.

Oh we will all char together when we char.
And let there be no moaning of the bar.
Just sing out a te deum
When you see that i.c.b.m.,
And the party will be "come as you are."

Oh we will all burn together when we burn.
There'll be no need to stand and wait your turn.
When it's time for the fallout
And saint peter calls us all out,
We'll just drop our agendas and adjourn.

You will all go directly to your respective valhallas.
Go directly, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dolla's.

And we will all go together when we go.
Ev'ry hottenhot and ev'ry eskimo.
When the air becomes uranious,
And we will all go simultaneous.
Yes we all will go together
When we all go together,
Yes we all will go together when we go.
- Tom Lehrer

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 25, 2013 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Anyone ventured an optimum population for Earth?"
Quite a few estimates out there, depending very much on what kind of ecological/energy footprint. Maybe 3 billion at Western standard of living. But if we all lived lilke Indian peasants, we could handle the 9 billion predicted for mid-century.

Posted by: Coralie

March 25, 2013 at 3:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

While I tend to be optimistic by temperament, it seems to me that the best position is neither optimistic nor pessimistic but realistic.
I don't expect God to provide nor do I expect 'Him' to destroy us for reasons unknown.
But 19th century optimism and faith in science/technology isn't quite enough either.

Posted by: Coralie

March 25, 2013 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, Have you ever thought of repenting and getting on His good side?

Posted by: mycentworth

March 25, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

No.
Your language is based on a framework that is not part of my world view and never was. I was brought up by agnostics.
Eastern or Christian mystics don't express themselves in your terms.

Posted by: Coralie

March 26, 2013 at 11:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

.Free should be careful about identifying environmental concerns with "lefties." First of all, environmentalism is an over-broad term that can include everybody from conservationists who want to protect unique places like the Grand Canyon or the Buffalo River, to hunters who want to protect ducks, to people affectec by industrial pollution (Love Canal, Whirlpool site), to those into simple living, to people who recycle religiously, to those who are concerned about events on the world scale and into the future. In one of my books it took 4 pages to list all the different types and flavors of people who might be considered environmentalists.
Certainly not all of them are liberals or lefties. Nothing could be more conservative in the true sense than conservation.

Posted by: Coralie

March 26, 2013 at 12:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you for Tom Lehrer piece. Some of us lived through 40 years of Cold War--not necessarily "apocalomania" either.
Dr. Strangeloves do exist, and flocks of birds may look like something else on the radar screen.
Some of it was gallows humor, like Tom Lehrer's poem.
I was living in Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and when people met and conversed they left each other saying "See you on Cloud Nine!"

Posted by: Coralie

March 26, 2013 at 12:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here's another fine song, by the Kingston Trio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRUIAl...

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 26, 2013 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cor: "Free should be careful about identifying environmental concerns with "lefties.">>

Right. People use all sorts of labels and I try to avoid the quibbling over the semantics of when one label overlaps another. When I said "lefties" I referred to attending an OMNI meeting:

"I went to a local meeting of lefties on the topic of climate change and some of these same folks were talking about humanity being extinct in 80-100 years due to climate change."

I don't think it's a stretch to refer to those at that meeting as "lefties."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 26, 2013 at 1:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I say, Miss Coralie, that we all get together, atheists, religious nuts, agnostics, leftists, and right wingers and gather in Page, Arizona for the purpose of removing the environimental nightmare obstructing the Colorado River; Glen Canyon Dam.

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 26, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good idea, Money.
But we don't even need to go that far away--what about a great big hog farm on the Buffalo National River, this nation's first national river and a glory of Arkansas.

Posted by: Coralie

March 26, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pinker: "if you take just American civilians - soldiers alone, we're comparing, say, 58,000 in Vietnam to something more like 5,500 in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.."
But tThat doesn't make sense, to compare by nations. We're talking about the world.
"The same story is true if you look at the number of, say, Koreans killed and Vietnamese killed compared to the number of Iraqis and Afghanis killed."
However there is a lot of controversy about how many civilians were killed in the Iraq War. Estimates vary from 110,600 to 1,033,000.. That doesn't count the Gulf War (est. 158,000) or the International Embargo 1991-2002 (est. 1 million deaths, half children), or the Iraq-Iran war with casualties in both countries together est. as much as 1 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualti...
http://old.post-gazette.com/nation/20...
http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#I...
And it doesn't count possible infant mortality and other mortality from DU poisoning.

Posted by: Coralie

March 26, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pinker: [quote] "if you take just American civilians - soldiers alone, we're comparing, say, 58,000 in Vietnam to something more like 5,500 in Iraq and Afghanistan combined..">>

COR: "But tThat doesn't make sense, to compare by nations. We're talking about the world.">>

I don't see why that isn't a fair comparison. He's comparing apples to apples. Vietnam and Korea were major US conflicts, just like Iraq and Afghanistan (he said he was just looking at an American example in this instance, this was a radio interview, in America). We haven't the foggiest idea of how many we directly killed in Vietnam but I've seen ranges of 3-5 million (and that's probably not including much of the deaths down the line and later). That's much more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined which makes the point that war's have tended to be less lethal. It's as if we are tending to value life a bit more.

That's a good thing.

Also, the military causalities in these conflicts, in this example, have been reduced by a factor of 10. That's quite an extraordinary difference and I don't see why it wouldn't be worth pointing out.

D.
--------------
"The biggest continuing war, in Afghanistan, last year killed about 500 Americans, 100 other coalition troops and 5,000 Afghans including civilians. That toll, while deplorable, is a fraction of those in past wars like Vietnam, which killed 5,000 Americans and nearly 150,000 Vietnamese per year. Over all, the annual rate of battle deaths worldwide has fallen from almost 300 per 100,000 of world population during World War II, to almost 30 during Korea, to the low teens during Vietnam, to single digits in the late 1970s and 1980s, to fewer than 1 in the 21st century." --Pinker, ibid

I read somewhere recently but don't have the source handy that centuries ago it may have been common for as much as 25% of the male population to be wiped out in wars. For battle deaths to now to be effecting about 300 per 100k population, never mind a handful per 100k of population, is a *profound* change and one I doubt very few are aware of.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 26, 2013 at 9:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That is, battle deaths.
We don't count all those 3rd world struggles using mainly small arms.
We don't count deaths from chemical illness or suicide afterwards."There are now more suicides among active duty soldiers than there are combat deaths." http://www.forbes.com/sites/melanieha...
There may have been underestimates of American military casualties in the two Gulf Wars. This source suggests that there were about 73,000 U.S. deaths from the Gulf War rather than the official number of 148.
http://www.viewzone2.com/gulfwar.deat...
Very hard to get accurate estimates of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, but the numbers are not negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331...
Wikipedia notes "The civilian losses are a continuation of the extremely high civilian losses experienced during the Soviet Afghan war in the 1980s, and the three periods of civil war following it: "
Some would count the Soviet Afghan war as a proxy war involving the USSR and the U.S. That would turn Afghanistan into an even longer continuing war and with much greater losses: the Soviet and American War in Afghanistan.
Wiki says "The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. Part of the Cold War, it was fought between Soviet-led Afghan forces against multi-national insurgent groups called the mujahideen. The insurgents received...billions of dollars from the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and other countries. The decade long war resulted in millions of Afghans fleeing their country, mostly to Pakistan and Iran. Hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians were killed in addition to the participants in the war."

++
Speaking just of Korea/Vietnam vs Afghanistan/Iraq, we could say "[American] wars have tended to be less lethal. It's as if we are tending to value [American] life a bit more [and the Pentagon is fudging the figures better]."

Posted by: Coralie

March 27, 2013 at 12:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

."Pinker says the rate of genocide deaths per capita was 1,400 times higher in 1942 than in 2008."
That is really playing with numbers. You take the rate of genocide at the height of one of history's greatest genocides and compare it with just one of the 65 years following.
Genocides don't happen on a regular basis like that.
They are still quite possible in the guise of nuclear war.

Posted by: Coralie

March 27, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"those at that meeting as 'lefties'"
To me, lefties are people who want major changes in economics/politics. (Liberals are more into reforms of existing system rather than major changes.)
I don't go to OMNI meetings, so don't know what it was like, but to me, an exaggerated prediction about how soon or the inevitability of human self-extinction show something other than being a "lefty."
Predictions are often wrong because they're based on simple extrapolation. The Ehrlichs and others made that mistake in the 1970s about the "population bomb" because the rate of world population growth at the time was very high. It started to decline soon thereafter (and maybe in small part because of their warnings?)
But their mistakes 40 years ago should not taint all predictions, especially if they are based on probabilities rather than certainties, and not presented in an alarmist manner.
I think that human self-extinction within the next century is unlikely but not completely "absurd" when you factor in everything, not only climate change, but sick oceans, declining sperm count, chances of accidental nuclear war, loss of topsoil, the fact that we are dependent on only a handful of major staple crops, chemical and radioactive pollutions, depletion of water sources, etc. etc.

Posted by: Coralie

March 27, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

But I'm not really a pessimist. The whole point of my third book was to present strategies and ideas to overcome our problems.
(revised version online http://www.ozarkia.net/koonce/books/S...
What really surprised me was that the subject of working on human survival and thrival found so little resonance. Apparently it's too big, requires too much thinking--and just describing the problems we face is too depressing.
People prefer to think about the either-or of politics, or atheists vs. fundies, or any stimulating Us vs. Them.
God will provide, or smite everybody who doesn't follow the same formulas we do. And then there's Technoutopianism or Science will provide.

Posted by: Coralie

March 27, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>And then there's Technoutopianism or Science will provide.

If only we would embrace it. Too many leftover Bronze Age beliefs clogging the mental arteries.

As Dar's article above describes it was science that's ended most of our diseases and killing problems.

Imagine that your grandchildren would live on a healing planet rather than a overly heated planet and get to have their children (or their grandchildren) prescanned for diseases or deficiencies before the embryo develops. None of that is now "far-out."

Imagine how easily science could convert our carbon based fuel systems to clean, renewable systems and the resultant environment. Not at all beyond accomplishing within 20 years, perhaps less.

But, along with Bronze Age gods come the profit motive as the supreme motivator of all that is good.

Posted by: cdawg

April 2, 2013 at 6:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )