Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Ontario Loyalist

World Might Blow Up or Something Today

Recommended Posts

Sheer nonsense. We're talking about a specific scientific experiment that could have (had) a profound detrimental impact on life of this planet.

No, we are not! You might read it that way but frankly, your posts show you simply don't have a qualified opinion.

First off, a collision between two protons might spark a black hole. Would you expect that black hole to be LARGER than a proton?

Physicists have known for years now that black holes don't last forever, particularly if they are very, very small. If Stephen Hawking isn't worried, why should we be?

What's more, protons have been racing around this universe since it was formed. Do you really think that a collision in this machine will be the first and only time it has occurred? Why wasn't everything swallowed up long ago? Such collisions must have occurred in nature an uncountable number of times. The universe is infinite, or hadn't you heard?

This reasoning reminds me of other nonsensical fears I've heard over the years. Back in the 70's I heard one protester about nuclear waste being against the idea of disposing it with rockets as "polluting space"! He obviously had no idea of what space was. He seemed to think it was another province or something. The entire earth is just a flyspeck on a grain of sand on a beach as wide as the Solar system in comparison to the size of "space".

Actually, still a lot bigger!

So people qualified to make opinions had no fears, considering the risk to be less than the number of deaths due to farting in elevators on a ride from the upper floors all the way down. Considering the benefits, should we not conduct such experiments because some people who couldn't even build a crystal set if their life depended on it are worried?

Many of these same people think that we should whole heartedly believe THEIR list of approved climate change scientists and impoverish ourselves meeting Kyoto targets yet they won't believe the physicists who tell us their collision machine is safe!

Where's the "B" Ark when you need it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good thing is they are going to keep on trying untill they get it right.

Yeah, it seems like they will!

Meanwhile, sometimes these Luddite posts get me down. I think I'll start rooting for the Vogons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other higher probability killers out there beside micro-singularities. This former island in the Aral Sea has thousands of tons (yes tons) of weaponized hemoragic smallpox and other fun critters stored just waiting for something bad to happen.

Folks still seem to sleep well...

:unsure:

---------------------------------------------

If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.

---Lewis Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF this project is able to find that ever elusive gravity particle. This could translate into a form of propulsion. Anti-gravity. Once you know the gravity particles exisiting (this is what the LHC is really for) the implications for this are limitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IF this project is able to find that ever elusive gravity particle. This could translate into a form of propulsion. Anti-gravity. Once you know the gravity particles exisiting (this is what the LHC is really for) the implications for this are limitless.

Limitless implications are a good thing?

Remember all of the great things that TNT was supposed to bring us? I don't think that massive artillery bombardments on the Western Front during World War One were in mind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Limitless implications are a good thing?

Remember all of the great things that TNT was supposed to bring us? I don't think that massive artillery bombardments on the Western Front during World War One were in mind...

No I do not recall what TNT was to bring us. But leave it to evil minded people to bastardize good intentions.

If chances are not take, there is no room for advancement of anykind. We are, by nature, a very curious animal. Sure there is a risk with every new discovery, but if we do not pursue them, we become stagnant. We have some of the absolute most intelligent scientists from around the world working on this project.

And Limitless implications is a wrong word to use, so I will change it to limitless applications if the gravity particle is discovered, once we know for sure it exists, we can use it for something. Space travel comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I do not recall what TNT was to bring us. But leave it to evil minded people to bastardize good intentions.

If chances are not take, there is no room for advancement of anykind. We are, by nature, a very curious animal. Sure there is a risk with every new discovery, but if we do not pursue them, we become stagnant. We have some of the absolute most intelligent scientists from around the world working on this project.

And Limitless implications is a wrong word to use, so I will change it to limitless applications if the gravity particle is discovered, once we know for sure it exists, we can use it for something. Space travel comes to mind.

Limitless applications is no better.

Humanity has existed for how many millenia, yet only in the last three or so centuries has there been a need for "scientific advancement". Sure, science improves our lives in the short term, but what if in the end it brings about our demise or spawns uncontrolable problems (superviruses) that make life miserable. As is stands we have a standard of living that is excellent--need we really advnce beyond this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Limitless applications is no better.

Humanity has existed for how many millenia,

40 to 50

yet only in the last three or so centuries has there been a need for "scientific advancement".

Archemedes begs to differ.

Sure, science improves our lives in the short term, but what if in the end it brings about our demise or spawns uncontrolable problems (superviruses) that make life miserable.

Improves our lives in the long term too. When was the last time you heard of someone dying of scurvy or the balck plague. Suoer Virus? Try the flu....kille more people than the first world war...

As is stands we have a standard of living that is excellent--need we really advnce beyond this point?

Are there still people hungry? Are there farmers in africa trying to maximize their produiction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archemedes begs to differ.

Oh, I think what guys like him did really can't be compared to modern science. Now it's become a manic obsession so narrowly focused that consequences no longer really matter.

Improves our lives in the long term too. When was the last time you heard of someone dying of scurvy or the balck plague. Suoer Virus? Try the flu....kille more people than the first world war...

Yet new viruses are always popping up. Whatever the case, both sides of the balance sheet need to be looked at. Science was essentially responsible for allowing the Nazis, for instance, to "effciently" exterminate large numbers of people, or to allow the US to build A-bombs to drop on Japanese cities.

Are there still people hungry? Are there farmers in africa trying to maximize their produiction?

Interesting that you should raise this issue. Famine in Africa is in part due to climate change which is brought about by human activity made possible by science. In terms of agriculture, what we need to know about producing crops is no different than what was known in the 1920s. Science is now focused on rather unnecessary things like GM crops and developing franken foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I think what guys like him did really can't be compared to modern science. Now it's become a manic obsession so narrowly focused that consequences no longer really matter.

Yet new viruses are always popping up. Whatever the case, both sides of the balance sheet need to be looked at. Science was essentially responsible for allowing the Nazis, for instance, to "effciently" exterminate large numbers of people, or to allow the US to build A-bombs to drop on Japanese cities.

Interesting that you should raise this issue. Famine in Africa is in part due to climate change which is brought about by human activity made possible by science. In terms of agriculture, what we need to know about producing crops is no different than what was known in the 1920s. Science is now focused on rather unnecessary things like GM crops and developing franken foods.

Oh, I dunno. I just had a quadruple heart bypass. I'm alive because of modern science! Thanks for nothing, all you Luddites!

As for Gosthacked's mention of anti-gravity and space travel, hot damn! Maybe I'll finally get to see that "B" Ark!

All you politicians, beauticians and telephone sanitizers get on board! The rest of us will be following you shortly! Honest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I think what guys like him did really can't be compared to modern science. Now it's become a manic obsession so narrowly focused that consequences no longer really matter.

Sure we can, it is the rhealm of a 'new discovery' that we can compare Archemedes to people like Plank, Einstein and Newton. The term EUREKA!!! is common in science, and used by almost all of them.

Yet new viruses are always popping up. Whatever the case, both sides of the balance sheet need to be looked at. Science was essentially responsible for allowing the Nazis, for instance, to "effciently" exterminate large numbers of people, or to allow the US to build A-bombs to drop on Japanese cities.

This is not so much the advancement of science, but evil people wanting to bastardize it to their own gain, instead of contributing to something that can benefit all of humanity.

Interesting that you should raise this issue. Famine in Africa is in part due to climate change which is brought about by human activity made possible by science. In terms of agriculture, what we need to know about producing crops is no different than what was known in the 1920s. Science is now focused on rather unnecessary things like GM crops and developing franken foods.

Again, evil, people using the science for their own gains, in the ruse of making our lives better.

All science starts out nobel. Then it takes a twisted mind to create a weapon out of it ect.

Wild Bill... well, take better care of yourself now ... live long enough where we can take a ship and go see Mars, or Pluto.. ect :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of agriculture, what we need to know about producing crops is no different than what was known in the 1920s. Science is now focused on rather unnecessary things like GM crops and developing franken foods.

Crop yields per acre today are many times over what was produced in the 20s. They are resistent to diseaeand fungus and are 100% needed to feed the masses.

Most starvation in Africa can be attributted to 19th century logistics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crop yields per acre today are many times over what was produced in the 20s. They are resistent to diseaeand fungus and are 100% needed to feed the masses.

You mean feed over-consuming North Americans.

The Amish who farm largely as they did in the 19th century often produce higher yields per acre than for agribusinesses.

Most starvation in Africa can be attributted to 19th century logistics...

Well, no, loss of farm land due to changing climate and adoption of modern farming techniques is a key factor. Interestingly, attempts are being made to reacquaint third world farmers with older farming techniques that stress soil conservation, farming techniques that allowed civilizations to flourish for millenia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean feed over-consuming North Americans.

The Amish who farm largely as they did in the 19th century often produce higher yields per acre than for agribusinesses.

Well, no, loss of farm land due to changing climate and adoption of modern farming techniques is a key factor. Interestingly, attempts are being made to reacquaint third world farmers with older farming techniques that stress soil conservation, farming techniques that allowed civilizations to flourish for millenia.

Wow, do you TRY to be wrong on purpose?

Do you have a cite for that Amish stat? thanks.

Also, where is all the lost farmland? thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, do you TRY to be wrong on purpose?

Do you have a cite for that Amish stat? thanks.

Also, where is all the lost farmland? thank you

:rolleyes:

whatever, "A pink ass a ding dang doo"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean feed over-consuming North Americans.

The Amish who farm largely as they did in the 19th century often produce higher yields per acre than for agribusinesses.

Well, no, loss of farm land due to changing climate and adoption of modern farming techniques is a key factor. Interestingly, attempts are being made to reacquaint third world farmers with older farming techniques that stress soil conservation, farming techniques that allowed civilizations to flourish for millenia.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Your going to feed 6-8 billion people and fuel vehicles with Amish technology.

My grain gets 60-80 bu/acre and my canola gets 50-60 bu/acre. It has to or I am in financial kaka.

I would doubt an Amish person gets a third of what I produce. An Amish person is going to get 80 bu/acre wheat with no fertilizer and no spray, that's the best laugh I had all day.

Those Africans need to get up to my level of production and fast if they don't want to starve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those Africans need to get up to my level of production and fast if they don't want to starve.

Its the chinese trying to do so now. Africans thought it bad with the whites...oh boy will they have some surprise coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its the chinese trying to do so now. Africans thought it bad with the whites...oh boy will they have some surprise coming.

Too late, look at Zimbabwe, that country used to be an agricultural exporter, now they can't even feed themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what happens when twenty five years ago the super powers had some fun exploiting Africa and destroyed the natural balance..then we blame them for poverty caused by us? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your going to feed 6-8 billion people and fuel vehicles with Amish technology.

If the Amish are producing similar or higher yields than conventional farming, and conventional farming is not feeding the world, then you tell me. But whatever the case, the agricultural practices that the Amish use can be employed in parts of the world where your kind of farming cannot, which means that locals can produce more of their own food.

My grain gets 60-80 bu/acre and my canola gets 50-60 bu/acre. It has to or I am in financial kaka.

I would doubt an Amish person gets a third of what I produce. An Amish person is going to get 80 bu/acre wheat with no fertilizer and no spray, that's the best laugh I had all day.

No, I'm quite certain that they have similar or higher yields, depending on what region they are farming in. Lancaster Co., Pa. has the most productive farmland in the US, I believe.

The thing is, while Amish farms tend to be small, due to their farming practices Amish farmers run profitable operations and usually are sitting on a far chunk of money because they know how to save and they haven't been trapped into modern farming practices that see farmers heavily in debt. So while you're sitting there worrying about being in "financial kaka," they're humbly going on with their lives knowing that they'll always be farming. So if I were you, I wouldn't be laughing... :lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Your going to feed 6-8 billion people and fuel vehicles with Amish technology.

My grain gets 60-80 bu/acre and my canola gets 50-60 bu/acre. It has to or I am in financial kaka.

I would doubt an Amish person gets a third of what I produce. An Amish person is going to get 80 bu/acre wheat with no fertilizer and no spray, that's the best laugh I had all day.

Those Africans need to get up to my level of production and fast if they don't want to starve.

It seems the Amish are doing fine for themselves. The Amish don't seem to want to make big money from their crops. When the money runs out, chances are the Amish now have a huge technological advantage over your gas powered tractors you can no longer afford fuel for. Whatever they grow, feeds the livestock and the horses needed to plow fields. They are quite self sustaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...