0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Biology is a human construct, the means by which we systematise and investigate the behavior of complex organic systems. It doesn't "structure particles" or indeed do anything.
Why do fruits taste good? Because those that don't, don't get eaten, so their seeds don't get distributed and the subsequent generation competes with (and eventually starves) its parents instead of expanding the population.Why are landscapes beautiful? Presumably this means natural landscapes rather than the mess left behind by God's Highest Creation in Flanders or Nagasaki, and the reason is because this rather stupid ape recognises places where there might be food and water. We have evolved to recognise green as generally nurturing, and "England's green and pleasant land" is actually the product of thousands of years of forest clearance to grow more food on whatever contours were left by the retreating ice age. If the universe was created by an intelligent entity, it's hard to see why, but fairly easy to deduce that we are a big mistake, which is why said entity created famine, fire, flood and disease, not to mention religion, to try to get rid of us.
If the universe was created by an intelligent entity, it's hard to see why, but fairly easy to deduce that we are a big mistake, which is why said entity created famine, fire, flood and disease, not to mention religion, to try to get rid of us.
I find it hard to imagine why choosing chance would make fruits good
and landscapes beautiful
In the case of an evolution without rules and hazardous would it not be a chaotic world?
The universe follows rules like biology
It wouldn't, but that's not how evolution works.
Evolution doesn't make landscapes beautiful.
Quote from: Kartazion on 19/02/2022 05:55:55In the case of an evolution without rules and hazardous would it not be a chaotic world?Yes.Quote from: Kartazion on 19/02/2022 05:55:55The universe follows rules like biologyOf course.
Ok. I wanted to talk about the physical process that follows the DNA to arrive from the fertilization to the living being.
The current result is due to human greed. Climate warming and starvation could have been avoided.
poverty sometimes brings misfortune and disease.
That's pretty well understood, at least in principle, and appears to be the inevitable consequence of organic chemistry.
No, the climate has been a lot hotter in the past - it's a cyclic phenomenon that has been going n long before humans evolved.
The Iceland famine in 1784 was caused by God's volcano erupting. The Bihar famine of 1873 was caused by God's decision to stop the rain falling. And so it goes on: whatever deity you believe in, will sooner or later make life very uncomfortable for you.
Does it ever bring anything else?
The inevitable consequence of organic chemistry is to understand that we ourselves are intelligent?
No causes of global warming for now?
This does not justify the current socio economic state of the world.
already too much death.
But measures can be taken to no longer build on these risky areas
I an talking about the discomfort of the billions that we are.
The humanity suffer from extreme poverty which leads to absolute decline followed wars.
Unfortunately, appropriation by patent locks most technical and medical innovations.
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 17:32:08QuoteDoes it ever bring anything else?The happiness of others?
We were discussing poverty. Does that ever bring happiness to anyone?
Yes.The rich are happy because they have wealth taken from the poor.The poverty is the cause of the happiness.
No, it's the effect of theft (rarely - stealing from those significantly worse off than yourself is not likely to be profitable) poor rainfall (frequently) overpopulation (often) sheer bad luck (even the wealthy can make bad decisions or have a crop wiped out by the Hand of God) or meanness (giving your kids' inheritance to the cats' home).I don't recall Bill Gates actually stealing anything from anyone, or even cornering the market in essential commodities, but he made a lot of money selling a product into a market he created. Nor have I met anyone actually impoverished by Windows. Come to think of it, have you ever seen Herr Trumpf or any senior member of the Royal Family looking happy?
It is clear that the inevitable consequence is that we have defined ourselves as intelligent. And by observation, more intelligent than any possible creator of the universe.
Suffice it to say that there is obviously a cause because we can observe an effect, and the effect has recurred roughly every 100,000 years in recent geological history.
in which poverty, however defined, decreases year on year. Doesn't seem to require much justification, though I'd be happier of it were quicker and sustainable
At a senior scientific meeting in the National Health Service, one rising star said his objective was to reduce mortality. The Chief Medical Officer said "If you can get it below 100% I'll recommend you for a Nobel Prize."
Volcanic soil is extremely fertile and geothermal energy is as green as you can get. There are fish in the sea, and also hurricanes. Food doesn't grow in supermarkets.
There's the future problem - too many humans, with unreasonable expectations.
The USA's most prosperous period, and also that of the USSR, followed the Second World War. Extreme poverty was the root cause of the Russian and Chinese revolutions.
No, it protects the inventor from theft. You can't "appropriate" a patent: if you aren't the "true and first inventor" (and very clever government agents spend a lot of time investigating that claim) you have to buy the patent or agree a licence fee to exploit it. I've worked for a number of small innovative companies who survive by licensing our patents to big manufacturers. Without the protection of patent law, we would never have taken the risk of developing the product. And patent protection can be challenged if the inventor hasn't exploited or licensed it.
Humans with unreasonable expectations?
"The happiness of some is the misfortune of others".
coffee break__________... the dinosaurs were there just to deceive you."
That’s a very old argument, but it suggests a very strange god who is prepared to deceive his followers.
It is not his followers that it/he/she deceives, ...