tjohnson

I'm not trying to justify a sneak attack on Pearl Harbour, but compare that to the WTC attack. Also, no matter what atrocities are committed by members of the other side does it justify what we do? Did bombing those cities bring back the people who died in the death march? Violence breeds violence and there is only one way to stop it and that is to stop doing it just to "get back" at the other guy. Or you can go the genocide route ( like Ba'al suggests) and then they can't retaliate anymore.

I agree that it's only "terra-forming" from our perspective, but I also think that this would be outcome of the whole bio-geochemistry process on most any planet. Also why would you think that other planets would have different initial conditions? Don't you think planets (suitable for life) would all be formed in more or less the same way?

Yes, we had a thread about that - it was explained that there were only 2 bombs and one couldn't be spared for a demo. Also it was said that the residents were warned to get out via pamphlets prior to the dropping of the bombs. That is something I guess, but maybe it was just to make the commanders feel more humane - not sure it had much effect. My guess is that the administration wanted the war over ASAP and that's that. As bad as it is that this happened at the end of the war, it's not as bad as if it started out that way - like in terrorist attacks. To actually go out and target innocent people without any provocation is the absolute worst but we must be careful not to let it get us so mad that we act just as bad in retaliation. The end does not justify the means.

The thing is it wasn't just life involved in this process, there were huge geochemical factors as well. The early microorganisms were actually terra-forming as well. This resulted in tremendous upheavals like snowball earths as the eco-system gradually stabilized into what we have now. This sort of goes with my argument about how long it takes to establish life on a planet because terra-forming a young planet is a huge undertaking that takes billions of years, assuming it must happen similarly throughout the universe. One has to assume the same elements and chemistry will be operating elsewhere in the universe.

Well, here's the thing. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour it was almost exclusively a military target, correct? Now what about bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and Dresden and Tokyo)? When you start killing innocent (non-military) people on purpose to get at the military people then you cross a line, IMO. No. All of them had military personell, military assets, weapons factories and none of them were declared open cities. They were all kosher military targets under the conventions then applying. Ba'al Chatzaf "Conventions" are easily changed and rationalized in the heat of warfare.

Not sure why you (or is it Ward?) characterize the formation of our oxygen atmosphere as "life behaving badly"? This event allowed life to flourish on Earth whereas before it only consisted of probably one or a few kinds of organisms.

Well, here's the thing. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour it was almost exclusively a military target, correct? Now what about bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and Dresden and Tokyo)? When you start killing innocent (non-military) people on purpose to get at the military people then you cross a line, IMO.

I'm curious as to why you say needed as opposed to wanted? I know very little about the history over there but is it possible some terms could have been negotiated? Why did it have to be unconditional surrender?

Life isn't perfect but it's tenacious Like you said, somehow it managed to hang on for 4 billion years or so - must be doing something right.

Generally quite self-destructive? That seems rather harsh. I would say it's generally relentless in it's effort to reproduce - even to the point of ruining it's environment. But natural bio-diversity makes it so organisms can live off each other's by-products and so there is a balance. This is one of the problems with monocultures.

Yes, sorry I hijacked the thread.

You seem to be concentrating on how different things could be in other systems. My point is that there are many, many more ways for there NOT to have intelligent life than there are for it to happen. There are probably innumerous planets in which life started and then fizzled out because conditions could not be sustained, possibly even Mars. I think we have to make the assumption that it requires conditions very similar to what we have here for intelligent life to evolve. If you want to open up the door to all kinds of different life-forms, like in sci-fi books, then anything is possible and it's just a waste of time speculating.

Actually, I mentioned this recently somewhere, but one theory about the Earth and moon is that THEY collided and the Earth got quite a bit bigger than Mars, for example. This allowed it to keep it's atmosphere and subsequently life flourished. Now THAT might be an extremely rare event in the development of a solar system which in itself could eliminate countless systems from having life. But given that it does flourish, my argument to you would be that there are too many extinction events in the early stages of planet and life evolution for the sustained evolution required for intelligence to emerge.

Interesting. This part is very similar to Korzybski's analogy of language as a "map". His view was that our maps became more detailed as knowledge progressed, much as in this example. Is there any way of seeing how this computer program works?

Well, I am not really sure why he says the things he does - that's anybody's guess. But to openly suggest that we should slaughter women and children sounds like mental illness to me. WWII was an example of what can happen when war gets out of control. It starts out with military targets but ends up with just mass murdering even innocent women and children. That this happens is bad enough but to actually adopt it as a policy is just plain lunacy.

I am speechless. In the Old Testament there was a case where the Lord decreed that the animals and trees were to be wiped out too. So this is progress! LOL,

To a certain degree, I see your point. But again, I reiterate the application of nuclear power is drastically different than a gun. That's where I'm finding difficulty with your analogy. The psychology behind the use of each, to me, is on opposite ends of the spectrum. ~ Shane Not sure I understand. I am referring to the thinking that goes along with an arms race. If I live somewhere that I fear for my own safety I will naturally want to take up arms to protect myself. The same can be said of nations, no?

I am speechless.

I don't "bitch and moan over the use of nuclear weapons", I bitch and moan over how you glorify war of any kind.

Aw come on, there must be SOME similarity. Sure, They're fruits ;) Ok, they're weapons that kill. It's their application that differs. You say the word nuke, and immediately you think of annihilation of a different country than yours. You say guns, you think cops and robbers, NRA, self-defense. ~ Shane Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines that the same psychology applies, albeit on a group level.

Aw come on, there must be SOME similarity.

OK, so if Iraq nukes the US then remember you had it coming.

LOL,

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that intelligent life could evolve much faster than it did on earth. I think when you look at what is required for the evolution from a single dna molecule or whatever to human beings to take place it requires billions of years. For example, So theoretically, we have only had 500 million years to evolve from "animals". Similarly, it has only been a few million years since hominids made their appearance. Now why would it be any different on another planet in some other solar system?

Self-interested and unsentimental - is that why Don Draper is a cheater and about to lose his wife and family on the show? Viva Objectivism! ;) I started a thread about this show if you would like to discuss See http://www.objectivi...l=&fromsearch=1