Very eloquent. Now follow that up with a full faced grovel on the floor of the main drag in St. Pete's big basilica while the college of cardinals walks all over you, and maybe then we'll reconsider your case.

Or... maybe not. It depends on whether your act of contrition meets the hazy qualifications for being genuine, authentic, and true.

The whole idea of either convincing the United States Military to wage a coup d'état or to actually combat them is, to me, just totally absurd. — thewonder

Wise revolutionaries do not take on powerful armed forces even with a batch of citizen soldiers armed with assault rifles. Daniel DeLeon proposed that socialists living in democratic countries would be best advised to use the available democratic machinery--free speech, the right to vote, freedom of assembly, and so forth. One key element which for DeLeon was key was extensive union organizing. Laws have been accumulating on the books for the last 60 years which heavily tilt the field (not a level playing field) against organization and unionism. That creates more obstacles but does not make organizing impossible.

Heavily unionized work forces, on industrial lines -- all auto workers, all oil workers, all maintenance workers, etc., have real leverage to force changes in the work place, including less opposition to unions. The well organized workforce, and the well-educated public can complete some of the central revolutionary tasks at the ballot box, but they have to be widely and well organized, both. 4%, 7%, 12% of the population isn't enough. Socialists need to be able to turn out majorities in elections (or at least, people who vote for socialist candidates, whether they themselves consider themselves socialist.

I don't see 12% of eligible voters casting ballots for socialists in the next election, let alone a majority. Success in this endeavor is many years away, following a lot of very hard work in the political/union/propaganda fields. There's nothing impossible about it. (I'm quite aware of how strong the grip of the existing political system is.).

Chou Enlai, the former PM of The People's Republic China (back in the mid-20th century) was asked whether he thought the French Revolution was a good thing. He said, "It's too early to tell." The story is almost certainly apocryphal, but it suggests that one should be cautious about judging revolutions too soon, or maybe too positively or too negatively.

The American Revolution took quite some time to deliver on its Enlightenment heritage (per @Schopenhauer but it did, eventually, deliver some of the promise. It took at least 200 years for some of the promised goods to arrive.

The Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 in Russia (which brought about the USSR) was a mixed bag. The 300 year rule of Romanov despots (only occasionally enlightened) was nothing to celebrate, something that needed to end. The Russian Revolution was fucked from the getgo. Russia had little experience with industrialism (some, not a lot), no experience with democratic government, low levels of educational attainment in the masses, an entrenched wealthy class, and so on and so forth. It's not surprising that it didn't turn out well.

Germany was a much better location for a socialist revolution, and there was a good chance that a socialist revolution could have succeeded there, had it not been for the crude political/violent methods of the German national "socialism" (sic) aka, the Nazis.

I totally agree about the importance of the enlightenment in establishing the concept of universal rights and unifying concept of man. It is a long bridge from positing the rights of man to institutionalizing them. We're still working on that part. And I agree on the desirability of abandoning tribalism.

Your opinions stated here are vulgar and absurd.

Merely being born somewhere does not amount to signing a contract — alcontali

"Merely" being born somewhere is all that it takes to become subject to this unwritten, unsigned "contract". You are taking the libertarian approach here, of course. "I owe no one anything! I touch no one and no one touches me. I am a rock, I am an Island, and an Island never cries..."

As far as I am concerned, the millennials have no obligation whatsoever to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. — alcontali

Of course you would think that, given your peculiar view of the world. [Not you, personally, but the entire cohort of all you ungrateful wretches.] Of course, in your scheme the baby boomers had no obligation to nurture, house, feed, and educate you either. They could have saved themselves a great deal of trouble by not conceiving you in the first place, or having the misfortune of giving birth to you, dashed your brains out on the nearest brick wall.

And since you resent the favors done for you, you can start paying for all the products and services which you received before becoming a libertarian.

Just don't pay! — alcontali

Stop with the whining and get back to work. Earn as much as you fucking can so the government can rob you of enough to keep me in the lap of SSA luxury.

Obviously the attractive "universal rights of man" were a problem right out of the gate. We had been practicing slavery for a century, in 1776, which fits poorly with the enlightenment ideal.

Colonial North America was a very stratified society, nothing like an egalitarian community. Most Americans did not have suffrage, for instance -- only about 6% did, propertied white male citizens. Most Americans were counted as riff raft by the elite. Our elite inherited the attitudes of the British elite who considered the poor, the landless, the worker as little more than white trash.

Yes, they were making it up as they went along. That's pretty much what people do, everywhere. There aren't any manuals that tell us how to assemble a society from scratch.

The slave-holding FF probably recognized the contradiction between their ownership of slaves and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". etc. but... Jefferson was chronically in debt and freeing his slaves would have had very negative economic consequences. When the push of ideals meets the pull of economic necessity, it's always a risky bet to assume that ideals will rule the day.

The elites were not happy about the riff raff taking off over the Appalachian Mountains into Kentucky Territory, western Virginia, the Northwest Territory (Ohio), and so on. The elite planned for them to do the heavy lifting, of course, but they didn't want the white trash rushing out ahead of them, settling, establishing communities, and so on -- without their express permission, and profit. And, of course, many of the riff raff often had difficulty once they arrived wherever they thought they were going. Successful settling unsettled land all by one's self was a really difficult thing to succeed at.

Our current system of government no longer works. — Pantagruel

Of course our current system of government works -- it works as well now as it ever did. Just because the current system is not working for you, or for me, or for most people, doesn't mean it isn't working as designed.

As far as I can tell, the Founding Fathers NEVER intended an egalitarian distribution of wealth. Most people (like 94%) couldn't vote in the US in the 18th century. White men who didn't own property finally gained suffrage in all of the states around 1850. Black men didn't get voting rights till after the Civil War. Women didn't get the vote until 1920. The political and economic elite of the United States has neither liked nor trusted working class people. Most people (at least 80%) are working class. That there is a huge population of "middle class" people is a falsehood aimed at class division. There are some middle class people -- maybe 10% - 15%of the population.

It seems to me that a real, "informal" social contract covers much more than government. It involves how we interact with each other. The informal social contract seems to operate pretty well most of the time in most places. There are continual isolated breakdowns -- like drunk driving, public fighting, gun play (not talking about mass killers -- more the idiots who start shooting at each other and the wildly fired bullets go through houses and kill people), child neglect, etc. -- but by and large people stay within the "social contract of common behavior" because it works, it's safer, it's more effective.

we can manage to live without the printing press, internet and other facilities — Wittgenstein

Of course we can -- our hunter-gatherers managed to live without all of it, for what, 200,000 years? But without the Gutenberg Revolution maintained, intellectual life as we have known it for the last 580 years will come to a screeching halt. We don't absolutely need all the tech we have used for the last several hundred years, let alone the 20th century tech. Remember, though, that the Grecian and Roman philosophers operated at the top of the social pile, with a lot of human labor needed to maintain the upper levels.

When the Western Roman Empire fell apart, the intellectual traditions of the ancient world were just barely preserved, or they were lost. The Medieval elites of Europe, and the monasteries, held on to a hunk of it, but most of it disappeared. Life was much simpler in the centuries following, closer to the soil for sure. We don't want to repeat that sort of loss.

Look, I agree we are suffocating in material excess, and the heaps of stuff that tower over us are mostly entirely unnecessary and/or run counter to our good health and happiness. Circumstances may yet require us to learn how to get along without all this accumulated dross, but let's not throw out the gold with the trash.

Living in society involves negotiating the rules and regulations. IF one wants to be naked in public, one should expect a certain level of resistance. One can probably find a beach or park where people can get away with nakedness, but walking stark naked into Macy's or Target will not fly 99.99% of the time.

I approve of gay sex in the park and nude beaches (preferably with sex options) but I don't want sex and nakedness everywhere. It's distracting, for one thing. It's a major crossing of boundaries, which most people find annoying. There are reasons why stores and restaurants have "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules.

Though, as far as clothing goes, I'm pretty tolerant. I find overly weird costumes off-putting, but I don't call the cops whenever I see somebody dressed strangely.

Materialism is a spiritual sickness and progress always happens in ideals and ideas not in building skyscrapers and countless industrial units. — Wittgenstein

Ideals and ideas are a fine thing, but The Philosophy Forum, Wikipedia, your favorite publishing house and preferred media outlet, and so on wouldn't exist if it weren't for all that plethora of industrial units (computers, cables, routers, server farms, high speed printing presses, broadcast equipment, electricity, telephones, and so on.

It takes a fair amount of devotion to material stuff, unless one is going to live in a box under a bridge, and even then, you need the box, the bridge, a blanket or two...

The idea of a universal salary is naive and l doubt if it will stop people from participating in a rat race. — Wittgenstein

One of the reasons it won't stop people from running the rat race is that the "universal wage" is, in one version, intended to provide a survival income base for people whose jobs have been eliminated by computers or automation. It's nothing like a 'living wage'. Another version of the universal wage is that it would be available to everybody -- universal. It would allow more self-development (education) and allow for more risk-taking. It is pitched as a good sized supplement. The universal wage isn't intended to finance a nation of philosophers and artists.

Such a goal is not only naive, it's absurd. Most people don't want to spend their days studying philosophy or very much else. It isn't that most people are stupid, or troglodytes, or beer-swilling slobs (even if some are). A lot of people are not adept at productively filling vast stretches of time. They like structure; they live and work well with in a structured environment. Or, they might spend their days listening to National Public Radio, or laying on the couch, smoking, and watching TV. And so on.

The rat race yields rewards--like money, social contact, a sense of belonging, having a role.

I'm not sure that "production" can be de-ratted. It's a treadmill, and once on...

people cease to be people, instead functioning as cogs in a machine whose purpose it is to produce the necessities of life so that people can afterwards be and do the things that what I would argue is what makes us people, viz. the act of socializing, Art, philosophy, and exchange of ideas, beauty, truth, humor, love, and community and belonging to reality. — Noah Te Stroete

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors found the necessities that allowed them to "be people". They left behind some stone tools, the very occasional piece of art, and bones -- their own and bones what they ate. They had time, presumably, for art, philosophy, ideas, beauty, truth, humor, love, sex, community, and all that--including "belonging to reality".

Did they live in a Garden of Eden until they were expelled by agricultural statists who made everyone work in the fields from dawn to dusk? Or did they live in a great emptiness of few people, no great ideas, certainly not truth, and maybe not much humor either?

I don't know. Nobody else does either.

Once we settled down and reaped the grain we had sown, built our mud hut villages and later stone cities, it was a long time before there was a great flowering of what we would call art, philosophy, beauty, truth, and all that. It took about 10,000 years.

There is a very real question of whether "Society" which enables individuals to be artists, philosophers, thinkers, creators, ingenuous inventors, and so forth can exist without a lot of excess labor. Again, I don't know.

It seems to me that it just does require an awful lot of work to keep society going so that great things can happen. It takes a certain amount of hard-work necessities, and then beyond that, it takes a hefty hard work surplus.

pretty much every church that I have attended has had the same or similar messages and talked about similar things during the Sunday service — Maureen

Seems reasonable, since the thrust of "The Church" from the get-go was to preach the Gospel of salvation. All Christian churches share the same foundation document (NT).

I have nothing against the Mormons, but they are beyond "denomination" and head into heresy and new religion. Their peculiar set of beliefs place them outside Christian theology. That said, they do a fine job of missionary work, they have numerous healthy social practices, and, of course, their great choir in Salt Lake City, the Mormon Tabernacle Cheese Press (as one sarcastic guy called it).

The Church (all of them) are continuing to decline, and religion is continuing to evolve and devolve. There is perfectly normal, and we should not lament it.

What is lamentable is the extent to which real estate concerns drive the church. Lots of institutions the world over have edifice complexes, and that is certainly true in the United States. I love a nicely done building, but for churches, the needs of the building drive the program of the church. Keeping the thing up takes so much money (the roof, the heating/ac system, drainage and leakage problems, repainting, the mortgage, etc.). Then there is well paid staff, office equipment, healthcare plans, and so forth. After all that, the churches do not have enough money left over for the corporal works of mercy, to do much about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, visiting those in prison clothing the naked, teaching the untaught, and so on--which should be their primary concern.

As for WHY there are so many denominations, it's because the US never had an established church, or law limiting the formation of churches--as still is the case in some European countries. The process of denomination formation (biologically speaking, its meiosis rather than mitosis) has kept the churches more vigorous in the US than in countries with established churches. That's my theory, anyway.

In On Organization, Jacques Camatte basically calls all political organizations "rackets". — thewonder

Let's start with a basic definition:

an illegal or dishonest scheme for obtaining money. "a protection racket"
synonyms: criminal activity, illegal scheme/enterprise, fraud, fraudulent scheme, swindle, scam, rip-off; shakedown

"he was accused of masterminding a gold-smuggling racket"

"Racket" may be used in a 'self-disparaging way; when some one says, "I'm in the insurance racket", they mean that's their line of work. — dictionary

Political parties might qualify as rackets IF they engage in illegal schemes to obtain money. The law is such that political parties have numerous ways of obtaining money without the violating campaign laws. Political parties are more likely to qualify as "rackets" if they regularly raise money on the understanding that they will pursue a designated policy, then do nothing in pursuit of said policy, or worse, pursue politics opposite the designated policy.

Idealists are most likely to think political parties are rackets. Realists understand that politicians generally serve the interests of wealthy and economically powerful individuals and groups, and they expect politicians and political parties to behave in their usual and customary groveling and ass-licking manner.

Lower case "new atheists" of the world UNITE. Since we've already lost our tickets on the Hallelujah Express Salvation Train to heaven, we'd best take care of one another in this world.

I'm a lower case "new atheist" because I became an atheist in middle age and worked on it for quite a while. Unpleasant atheists? Indeed there are. I had not heard of, and did not read, any of the New Atheists back when I was busy uprooting the sacred tree in the garden of good and evil.

I don't argue with believers; first, as a former believer I know where they are coming from. It isn't all bad; it isn't all good either. Two, if they think they are missionaries to the heathen or apostate damned, they will derive more fulfillment and a sense of justification from haranguing and arguing with you than one may wish to give them.

IF, and only IF you enjoy arguing with believers, and derive a commensurate satisfaction from attempting to undermine their sense sanctified entitlement, then you can productively argue with them. Otherwise, tell them to take a flying fuck at Ezekiel's wheel (Ezekiel 1:16).

"Heathen" is a Germanic word (Dutch, German, Old English) but the concept derives from the Middle Eastern 'received' religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. People who don't believe (from the perspective of those who do believe) are "heathens".

Lately, people want to associate everything / anything with white supremacy. Braunschweiger, Bach, and Bier. "Oh, oh--having a beer & bratwurst while listening to Bach -- must be a white supremacist.

Totally agree.

But also, the dictum is used in the service of censorship, so I think some opposition to it might be necessary. — NOS4A2

I'm all in favor of resisting the censors and their wishes to silence people. You can find much better examples of censorship vs. freedom of speech than defending the rather weak, alleged "right" to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. How about banned books? The Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath, or To Kill a Mockingbird... How about bans on teaching evolution (not in 1924, but in the present year)? The right to discuss organizing a union among fellow workers?

I think science assumes free will is real. — Gregory

Really? Why do you think that? Is 'free will' even a suitable topic for science?

matter is the prime mover — Gregory

What about matter would make it possible for the laws of nature to change arbitrarily? Matter seems to be pretty reliable.

↪Bitter Crank I'm concerned about the consequences. If value is measured in terms of money then everything is on sale. All you need to do is agree on a price. If I'm not mistaken even God is on sale now. — TheMadFool

Something as specific as "money" or "currency" isn't the problem. It's a whole economic system that is the problem. Capitalism (which has been developing for the last 4 or 5 centuries) is that system. Apart from capitalism, hunter-gatherers were organized into field hands and started cultivating grain and living together in fixed places around 10,000 - 12,000 years ago. Land became a thing to possess, produce from the land became a thing to tax for the benefit of the organizing state, and so on and so forth.

If we want to escape the whole money, economic exploitation, and burdens of living in a mass society, we will have to return to a hunting-gathering culture where possessions are minimalist, place is not fixed, and society consists of maybe 20 people. It was a good way of life -- it lasted at least 100,000 years, and in the process didn't have much effect on either the planet or it's flora and fauna--including the hunter-gatherers.

Unfortunately, the boat that takes us back to living the simplicity of hunter-gatherers left the dock thousands of years ago. We're stuck in a world where everything is for sale. We can't escape it, but we don't have to be utterly debased by it either. It's one thing to buy a $50 book so that you can learn from it, and something else to buy a $100 book which will convey status, sitting on your coffee table. It's one thing to buy a good pair of shoes so your feet don't hurt; it's something else to buy expensive shoes to walk all over other people. And so on.

Just live as simply and authentically as you are able.

Yes, we can resist our inclinations and go against them but it's an uphill battle. Moreover this is strong evidence that we didn't choose our preferences at all. — TheMadFool

If we can resist our inclinations, even only some times, isn't that a demonstration of us having at least some free will?

I don't know for sure what I chose or didn't choose, which brings up an issue relevant to the free will discussion: can we determine with certainty whether a given act (choice, decision, action, etc.) was the result of "free will" or "determination"? If we can't distinguish between the two, how can we even begin to discuss the question?

"What to do with a mentally ill commander in chief?"

Involuntary commitment; locked cell on a locked floor; thorazine, electro-shock therapy ("Here, let me set the voltage on that dial!"); long term custodial care. And perhaps there would be an unfortunate accident, so round-the-clock security (no Secret Service; just regular hospital psychopaths).

Something along those lines; make One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest look like enlightened care.

Are you finding that the law is crimping your style?

Law or analogy, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater remains a bad idea. Unless, of course, the theater is packed with Republicans, then it might be classed as a public service.

Wouldn't it depend on whose children you are talking to and under what circumstances? Like, telling the neighbor's children that their mother is a whore might result in harmonious neighborly relationships. You can probably tell your own children whatever you want. If you are a teacher, there are all sorts of things you ought and ought not say, if you want to keep your job.

There are some laws against making indecent proposals to children. Should there be? I read in a book that people are stupid, so there probably have to be laws to deal with stupid people.

Why is it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater (when there's no fire).`? — Coben

A little historical information will help. There have been very bad fires in theaters, night clubs, and the like, resulting in very large losses of life. When someone smells smoke, sees the flames, etc. and sounds the alarm, people will all bolt for the door. No singledoorway can accommodate more than 3 or 4 people at a time. If 500 people try to get through a doorway at once, they will compact, trample and kill some people, and become an interlocked mass. If there is smoke and fire and many people, it is practically guaranteed that a good many will die where they are standing.

Similar disasters have happened at soccer and rugby matches, when for some reason people stampeded for the exits which were not wide enough to allow a mass of people to move through. In those cases, the deaths were from being crushed under foot and suffocating.

Sometimes doors have been criminally locked or bolted shut, and then the loss of life was even worse.

So, walking into a theater where there is no fire and yelling "FIRE!" is likely to lead to a stampede which will probably result in at least a few deaths, for which the person yelling "FIRE!" would be responsible.

The recent El Paso shooter confirmed his intended targets were "Hispanics", and his actions followed hate speech from the POTUS directed against them. The connection cannot be proven, of course. — Pattern-chaser

I agree with you that speech can incite others to act. It isn't as simple as me saying "Kill Bill" and you rushing out and shooting Bill in the head. The El Paso murderer claimed that he intended to kill hispanics, and he did. I'll take him at his word that he did what he wished and intended to do. Whether or not the El Paso murderer committed his crimes because he listened to one, two, several, or more speeches by Trump can not be proven, as you say. DT has attacked several groups repeatedly, and a lot of people get shot, so it's a bit difficult to disentangle one shooting from another.

Trump hasn't said anything as directive as King Henry II, "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" which inspired the murder of Thomas à Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. It's also not quite as inflammatory as "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. And it wasn't the King who said it. It was the character "Dick". Henry wouldn't have been helped by killing all the lawyers. Most kings and hip POTUS must needs all the legal help they can get.

I was once told that butterflies fold their wings vertically while moths keep them horizontal. The winged critter on my hand had its wings folded vertically. So... — TheMadFool

It was probably a butterfly. My knowledge of entomology could be written on only one of your butterfly's white wings. Insects = 6 legs, spiders = 8. That's it.

Have you not previously noticed those small winged white things flying around at night? Moths?

Insects need more than nectar; they also need some minerals which they find on moist rocks, at the edge of very little puddles, and on your hand.

I felt a sadness for this beautiful butterfly and also a very close connection to it. Was I also like it, in the wrong place at the wrong time and all my life a futile nothingness, empty and pointless? — TheMadFool

We are all one, somebody said. And "Futility of futilities. All is futility." Ecclesiastes. (More familiar, older wording: vanity of vanities.)

Sic transit gloria mundi. (thus passes the glory of the world)

Thus, ALL objects in the universe are in motion relative to something else. All is motion. — TheMadFool

Observation tells us that the galaxies are moving away from each other because the universe is expanding. The galaxies are spinning, the planets are orbiting their stars, and are spinning on their axes. Then, on this planet, there is continental drift -- and you won't sit still either.

These are all good suggestions. I am in favor of all of them (with the possible exception of space infrastructure--meaning population habitat).

I believe/think/hope that a sustainable economy IS possible, is do-able, is absolutely necessary IF we are going to survive. We already know what sustainable food options are--it is vegetarian. The really difficult task involves an abrupt transition from fossil fuel/fossil chemical energy intensive economy to a much less energy intensive, economy.

The "World Made By Hand" series by James Howard Kunstler illustrates through fiction what life might be like in a catastrophic transition: do-able, but not at all nice. One can imagine that in a planned transition (over a short enough period of time to merit the term 'abrupt') it would be do-able, difficult, but not horrible. The unanswered question is how can any country (like the EU, the US, China, etc.) bring about a planned transition soon when the entire world economy is bent in continuing in the opposite direction of MORE, NOW.

It isn't the technology: It's the deeply entrenched elites (Koch Industries, et al) that are the primary obstacle.

It probably can. It's just insane to try to force it to by killing people. — Echarmion

I'm not in favor of killing 3 or 4 billion people either. So what's your do-able suggestion, aside from 3 or 4 billion people leaving the planet aboad space ships?

This thread is about how humanity can keep growing. — Echarmion

Actually, this thread is about CAN HUMANITY STOP GROWING?

The resources of the cosmos are more or less inexhaustible. All we need to do is get off this rock. — Echarmion

So true, but just a teensy bit easier said than done. So far, a dozen people have stepped on the moon, and the moon is only 250,000 miles away, and troubled by nothing worse than a vacuum.

Regarding Hubbert's graph...

The recent surge in US production of oil is the result of squeezing out more oil by using increased energy inputs (fracking). Even when the end of the graph is reached, let's say, 2050, there will still be substantial quantities of oil in the ground. BUT, as I understand it anyway, the energy required to extract the oil will exceed the value of the oil extracted. At that point, it simply doesn't make sense to drill a new well or go back to an old well.

I'm pessimistic and I'm sticking to it. IF we insist on pumping every last barrel of oil out of the ground, and shoveling out the last ton of coal, and burning it then we extend the energy supply on one end and decrease the supply of bearable climate on the other end. Meanwhile, population continues to grow, and I see no reason to suppose that we will manage to overcome changed environmental conditions by developing wheat, for instance, that can stand hot wet weather, or corn that can stand hot dry weather in the next thirty years. Fungal diseases, insects, soil depletion, floods, rising ocean levels, drought, etc. all weigh against an optimistic approach.

The argument that science & technology have improved our agriculture etc. yet now it is over is rather dubious too. — ssu

It is over for some people, and it will be over for more. I don't expect that our disaster will play out in one final cataclysm in Act V, scene 10 affecting everybody between South Africa and Finland, or between Tiera del Fuego and Nome (unless we get hit by a big meteorite).

Per your handle, I would suggest that a lot of the gain in the last 60 or 80 years in life expectancy has been from the development of antibiotics. Pre-penicillin and other antibiotics, infection and infectious diseases were the leading causes of death. Various vaccinations also contributed.

Prior to the antibiotic discoveries, minor--never mind major--injuries could and did lead to death. A minor infected wound could turn into septicemia and from there it was Shall We Gather at the River out at the cemetery. A sinus infection could (and sometimes did) turn into a really bad dying.

In much of the world, infections like malaria and tuberculosis become multi-drug resistant and prove fatal. Gonorrhea is a good example of a fairly common infection in the industrialized world that is becoming quite resistant to the available antibiotics. Some strains are now as untreatable as they were before penicillin. (Gonorrhea is normally not fatal, but anyone who has had it (I have) can tell you it is definitely not fun.)

Various nosocomial infections like Staphylococcus aureus are edging over the line to become untreatable, and it can be fatal.

I've got 200,000 years of human progress on the side of my argument. You've got 200 years of failed doom and gloom predictions going back to Malthus and spectacularly exemplified by Erlich." — fishfry

There wasn't much "progress" during our 200,000 years of hunting and gathering. Innovations were few and far between because hunting and gathering worked pretty well for the small populations of people at the time. They hunted, gathered, wandered, sheltered, and carried on without wrecking the environment.

Round about 10,000 years ago -- either as a state-sponsored conspiracy (some anthropologists have suggested) or as a remarkable and wonderful innovation (as most anthropologists think) we became agriculturists, settled down, and here we are.

While no one can argue with you that Malthus's and Ehrlich's predictions have failed to become fact, it is also the case that no one can refute the fact that Doom has been avoided by an extraordinary, almost incomprehensible extraction of energy resources from the earth, which is not repeatable. Once we have used up the stored carbon that is easily accessible (we are on track), there won't be more. And, of course, extracting the carbon from the ground means adding it to the atmosphere, which has, we find, rather inconvenient limitations on how much it can absorb without highly inconvenient consequences for our esteemed selves.

That the Trinity test of a plutonium bomb would ignite the atmosphere was not a serious concern among the Los Alamos scientists who constructed it. Someone quipped that maybe it would (check out Richard Rhodes History of the Atomic Bomb), but this idea was dismissed.

There was some ambivalence about the morality of the Manhattan Project among the small circle of people who had an overview of what the project was about, and there was a lot more ambivalence shading into revulsion after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.