The real question should be not “is there a god” but do I have faith that there is no god. This confuses most theists and atheists alike, because the question of god has nothing to do with proof or evidence but belief and faith. — simplyG

:100: There is no objective or scientific test that can be done to conclusively prove that god does or does not exist. The belief that there is a god (or no god) is subjective. A question of belief and faith.

A similar argument applies to the question of whether Satan exists or not.

If god exists then she could make it appear as if she doesn't exist. :grin:

Someday humans and bananas will be hybridized and will share 100 percent dna. — Merkwurdichliebe

Will they be called "humananas", "hananas", or "bahumans", or "bahanas" ?

I think the main threat to global stability will be climate volatility. — frank

The climate is already very variable when you look at summer and winter. Animals and plants have evolved to cope with this variability.

A 2 degree C. increase in temperature is equivalent to perhaps 1000 km move towards the pole, and most plants cannot move that far in a few decades. — unenlightened

Humans can move the plants that they want to move. This solves the problem for plants that can't move themselves. All of our food crops etc will be easy to shift.

A 2 degree C. increase in temperature is equivalent to perhaps 1000 km move towards the pole, — unenlightened

How far would you need to move towards the nearest Pole to reverse one degree Celsius of global warming?

I don't think anyone is expecting more plusses than minuses. — frank

There are probably people in some locations who will get more plusses than minuses. Can we expect these people to help to solve global-warming/climate-change?

I think it means the costs of climate change shouldn't be shuffled off onto the poor. — frank

Are there any benefits from global-warming/climate-change? If there are, then what are they?

A 30% genetic difference is HUGE. No mammal is so genetically remote from humans. This number is closer to the difference between humans and reptiles. — hypericin

Humans and bananas share 50 to 60 percent of the same DNA. So there is a 40 to 50 percent genetic difference between humans and bananas. :nerd:

This same exoplanet has methane and CO2, ... — frank

Global-warming and Climate-change ???

I'm astounded at how these climate crisis radicals refuse to acknowledge how essentially racist and sexist they actually are. — Merkwurdichliebe

The term "climate justice" is used a lot by people who are worried about the climate crisis. Can anybody please explain to me what "climate justice" is?

Just to point out - there is no shortage of energy. — unenlightened

There is a shortage of energy in some locations.

The problems of climate change are caused by an excess of energy. — unenlightened

Excess energy judged by what standard? Better too much energy than too little. Can you ever have too much energy? Can you ever have too much money?

There is plenty of available energy, and no need for energy poverty if, instead of bitching about every other region, the supposed world leaders would take the lead in transforming the energy economy. — unenlightened

There is plenty of available energy if you are willing to use coal, oil, and natural gas. Energy poverty can occur if people can't afford the cost of energy. "Going green" usually increases the real cost of energy to the consumer.

My point might be seen as that the word "subjective" makes the situation more problematic rather than clearing anything up. — Banno

The word "subjective" makes the situation more complex but it also makes the situation more realistic. The reality is that people do disagree. I agree that the situation being more complex can make the situation more problematic. But a situation should not be oversimplified.

Mine seems a more useable approach. I have grounds for a reprimand, perhaps even a sanction, while you only have grounds for expressing your disapproval. — Banno

Your approach is certainly more usable. It has been used historically and in recent times to justify starting wars, burning people at the stake, threatening people with eternal damnation, separating children from their parents, persecuting people for having different beliefs, etc.

My approach would hopefully result in more tolerance. But I agree with you that my approach may result in people not taking united action because they disagree (e.g. climate-change/global-warming).

One situation that I find interesting is the question of whether we should eat beef. In the west most people feel that it is okay to eat beef. But most people in India are probably horrified that we eat an animal that is sacred to them, and which they think should be protected and venerated. Who is right and who is wrong?

Concluding that therefore there is no truth to the issue is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't follow. Some folk think the world is flat. Do you conclude that therefore the geometry of the Earth is subjective, a question of mere opinion, and hence there is no truth of the matter? — Banno

I do believe that truths exist. However, they are understood subjectively.

The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true. — A parable

but our governments can subsidize the transition. — Mikie

Some people believe that the government can spend any amount of money without making anybody worse off. The reality is that the money has to come from somewhere. For example:
- collecting more taxes
- making budget cuts elsewhere
- causing inflation by printing money

There is no such thing as a free lunch — Popular adage

Well nothing that's real is ever for free
And you just have to pay for it sometime — If It Doesn't Come Naturally, Leave It - Al Stewart

And I'm saying that, for example, if someone says that it is fine to kick puppies for fun, they are wrong. — Banno

I agree with you that kicking puppies for fun is wrong. That is my subjective opinion and your subjective opinion is the same as mine. I think that the vast majority of people also have the same subjective opinion.

How do you feel about pulling the wings off flies?

How do you feel about killing mosquitoes?

How do you feel about eating meat?

Are you saying I should take your word for it rather than trust my own view? — Banno

I am not claiming that I have ultimate authority on what is good or bad. Some things can have both good points and bad points. It doesn't have to be totally good or totally bad.

I am not saying that you should take my word for something rather than trust your own view. I am saying that different people can hold different opinions about whether something is good or bad without one of them being "wrong". The question of good or bad depends on your point of view. In other words, it is subjective.

What you see as a good action I may see as a bad action.
— Agree-to-Disagree
And if you did, you would presumably be wrong. — Banno

Are you saying that you are the ultimate authority on what is good or bad. Were you born with this godlike ability or did you acquire it later?

There's a basic flaw in the assumptions of this thread; actions are what are good or bad, not people, and not genes. — Banno

But good and bad are subjective. What you see as a good action I may see as a bad action. This makes the topic of this discussion even more difficult to answer.

And for that reason as well it hardly matters whether "people breed like rabbits" (although they don't and this comment makes you sound like a racist). — Echarmion

The comment is not intended to be racist. I am simply pointing out that the population is likely to grow to over 10 billion and this is likely to make problems worse.

But being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. If you wait until the shit hits the fan, then your choices are more limited, and the problem you have to deal with is bigger. .. — frank

Yes, being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. But it is often different people who pay the price. A person who is old has a different perspective on global-warming/climate-change to somebody who is young.

To put things crudely, using your analogy, old people may be dead when the shit hits the fan. I know that this sounds selfish, but most people are selfish. You can probably blame evolution. :grin:

if "world" means the literal planet, then I see how higher energy prices might be good for the literal planet, sure — flannel jesus

I was using the word "world" to mean both the literal planet AND everything else associated with the planet. Because the world is made up of many parts any policy can have both positive and negative effects. Also whether an effect is good or bad is subjective.

Your statement could be true if "world" meant just the literal planet.

"What's best for the *world*" could be interpreted as, the health of the planet and global ecosystems, right? And, presumably, green policies are in fact better for that. — flannel jesus

"What's best for the *world*" can be interpreted in many different ways. For example:
- having a cheap and reliable energy supply
- improving the standard of living for poor and developing countries
- stopping people from breeding like rabbits
- giving everybody a good education
- teaching people that killing 99.9% of bacteria is a bad thing
- stopping child labor which is used to mine cobalt for lithium-ion battery production used for electric vehicles

You said. "presumably, green policies are in fact better for that". Some green policies have negative effects. Many people think that "green" means the same thing as "good". This is not necessarily true. Is it "good" to have higher energy prices (often the result of "going green").

Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies? — Merkwurdichliebe

As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy. People in the west usually assume that the west is correct, and that China is wrong. But what if they have it the wrong way around. China is correct and the west is wrong?

The obvious difference between the west and China is that the west is mostly democratic, but China is not. Politicians in the west must convince the public in their country to vote for them. They probably give the interests of their citizens higher priority than what is best for the world. So if the group of people in the country who want green policies is large enough or loud enough then western countries will enact green policies even if they will damage the economy.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil (pun intended). :grin:

Vaping didn’t become popular until much later, and is an entirely different thing. It too is now being regulated as an industry— rightfully. — Mikie

Vaping is largely about nicotine addiction. The same as cigarettes and tobacco. You could call it the nicotine industry. Nice flavors are added to entice young people into getting hooked. It is now the "cool" thing to do, like cigarette smoking used to be. How is this totally different?

I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the evidence became undeniable. — Mikie

The effect of this political decision was that many people started vaping. Even people who had never smoked. Solving one problem caused another problem which some people think is as bad or worse.

How many of you would propose it is down to one thing: that people are really born bad or good eggs, or that really there is only conditioning and interpersonal influence at work. Who would propose that it is in fact an obligatory combination. — Benj96

A person is the product of both nature AND nurture. Nature may be stronger than nurture for some characteristics, but nurture may be stronger than nature for others.

I would like to explore the age old argument: Nature verse nurture. With a focus on the propensity towards crime, wrongdoing and malice as well as virtuosity, charity and outstanding citizenship. — Benj96

Good, bad, crime, wrongdoing, malice, virtuosity, charity, and outstanding citizenship are all subjective. Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry children a good thing or a bad thing? It depends on your point of view. Often it is a combination of both good and bad.

Interesting. Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies? — Merkwurdichliebe

The west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies undercutting their economy. The west will probably shift a lot of their manufacturing and production to places like China. China will be very happy about this. China doesn't want green policies to get in the way of this bonanza.

I don't think she had political power anywhere, did she? — frank

Queen Elizabeth became Queen due to the death of her father. The position of King/Queen had become more of a figurehead role by then. She had no direct political power but she had a lot of influence. She provided checks and balances to the politicians in commonwealth countries. The arrangement meant that both the Queen and the politicians didn't have absolute power (power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is a red herring, but we still do something about it. What's the worst that could happen? Longer oil supply? Less plastic in the oceans? — jorndoe

One of the problems with this statement is the use of the vague term "we". Who exactly is "we"?

I assume that you mean everybody. But not everybody wants to do something. And how will the costs be distributed?

I think each one has a golden period in its youth, then they all turn to crap eventually. I think I'm living during the decline of modern democracy, maybe. So I'm seeing all the advantages to monarchy. — frank

I assume that you live in America. I live in a commonwealth country and until recently had Queen Elizabeth as our reigning monarch. This worked very well because she had no direct political power in our country but she acted as our sovereign and head of state. This gave us the advantage of being a hybrid democracy-monarchy. It worked very well, but some people want us to become a republic.

It's a cycle. Monarchy becomes corrupt and gives way to oligarchy (statesmen or clergymen), which become a burden on the people and gives way to democracy, which fails and gives way to monarchy. Over and over... — frank

Frank, do you have a personal preference for which system you would like to live in? Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy?

If it accomplishes our goals whereas democracy, or in the case of the global political scene, anarchy, doesn't, then why not? — frank

Do you have any goals which aren't related to global-warming/climate-change? What if the world dictatorship doesn't support or allow these other goals?

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely — Lord Acton (and others)

Frank, be careful what you wish for.

I think they would if they felt everyone was doing it collectively, but we would need a strong world government to make that happen. — RogueAI

When you say "a strong world government", I think that you mean a "dictatorship".

A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials. — Wikipedia

Is that really what you want?

China is permitting the construction of about 2 coal power plants per week. — frank

Don't tell Mikie because he/she thinks that the whole world is standing around a campfire holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

Trolls would have us do nothing about it, despite evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change, pollution, etc. — jorndoe

What percentage of humans are "trolls"? Perhaps trolls outnumber non-trolls.

I suspect that many people don't want to lower their standard of living despite the fact that there is evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change.

I don't find this a particularly compelling argument. If we agree that it's morally correct to prevent women from having abortions, which of course I don't, then the fact that they're putting themselves at risk is their responsibility, not ours. — T Clark

Women would be putting themselves at risk BECAUSE we are preventing them from getting legal abortions. The women don't make their decisions in a vacuum. Society should not ignore the problems that are caused by the laws that it creates.

Regardless of the morals of the situation, making abortion illegal causes some women to put themselves at risk. This means that their family, friends, workmates, and society in general, are paying a price because the law exists.

Sure, but I think those can be boiled down to two major issues 1) People should be allowed to have control over their own bodies ... — T Clark

Some of the points that I have listed go beyond the issue of whether people should be allowed to have control over their own bodies. They show what the possible consequences are of preventing women from getting abortions. Does "society" want to pay that price?

When abortion is debated in our current political context, one of the primary arguments adopted by its advocates is that it is an essential means by which women retain autonomy over their bodies.

Putting aside discussion of the relative merits of this claim, it’s notable that the idea of bodily autonomy was not a common line of argument adopted when abortion was first legalised in Britain in 1967. Instead, abortion campaigners were primarily successful because they tapped into public fears (and therefore politicians’ concerns) that women were dying from backstreet abortions. This article seeks to interrogate the argument that backstreet abortions are a justification for legalised abortion.

This is a far more powerful defence of abortion than the concept of bodily autonomy, which is easier to dispute scientifically and philosophically. It sits neatly in the middle of the abortion debate, providing even those who possess moral discomfort with the termination of foetal life an adequate reason to believe legal abortion continues to be necessary. Indeed, such a perspective, with its appeal to compassion and practicality, is undoubtedly appealing to many Christians. — care.org.uk

I agree, it is discriminatory against men. Medical science has discriminated against men in multiple ways including its failure to offer any options for abortion procedures on the reproductive capacity of men. — Merkwurdichliebe

Don't worry, medical science is trying to reduce discrimination against men by allowing them to have a womb transplant. This further complicates the issue of abortion. Will a man with a womb transplant be allowed to have an abortion?

Biological men set to carry children for first time after womb transplant breakthrough — www.dailymail.co.uk

I think abortion is really terrible method of birth control and should be avoided if possible. It's a bad thing. Good access to sex education, birth control, and support for pregnant mothers and families should be the first line of action. — T Clark

I agree with this. There are a number of other issues which also complicate abortion:
- other locations whose restrictions on abortion are less strict (different state or country). Women who are wealthy enough can go to one of these locations. Woman who are not wealthy enough can't use this method of getting an abortion
- the existence of the abortion pill
- the possibility of backstreet abortions with more risk to women
- the effect on the mental health of a woman if abortions are prevented
- the effect on the women's other children (e.g. money, food, etc being spread over more children)
- the fact that the man can "walk away", but the woman can't if she is prevented from getting an abortion. The woman can end up carrying the burden alone
- if abortion is illegal then what punishment is given to a woman who gets an abortion. Will there be "abortion police", which takes away resources from fighting other crimes? How many extra prisons will need to be built to hold women who have had abortions?

It's axiomatic, isn't it, that a large scale operation (40K McDonald outlets) is more efficient than scattered small scale operations (40K coffee shops, diners, cafes, etc.). That doesn't make McDonald's good, from several perspectives, or the small scale operations bad. — BC

You make many good points. I was only commenting on the efficiency of fossil fuel use.