I, am neither "naive" nor "incredibly cunning" in a dangerous way.

My real name doesn't appear anywhere online (not from my activity anyway- others may talk about me)- and I haven't signed up for any social networks- although I am very active on forums and blogs like this one.

As a kid on the old BBSs that were popular before the internet got big, my brother used to watch the forums for things I said that he could report to my parents to get me in trouble. Even though I used an alias- he knew what my alias was. I got in trouble too many times for things I posted online not to be carefull.

As a result- I learnt very early on to hide my real name (and even my alias where possible) from anyone who might want to track me for nefarious purposes. Now, I never use the same name on more than one place I comment.

I think currently this is true- but has not always been the case. As an example- Mendel was in a monestary when he discovered genetics with his peas. Throughout most of the middle ages- much learning and technology would have been lost or forgotten about if it were not for the church. Church was responsible for most of the education and educating that occurred for hundreds of years.

The trend today seems to be for Church to attack science- and has been in the past- but it has at times been responsible for preserving knowledge of the sciences.

You can't. Other scientists can. Everything should be treated with some skepticism until it is duplicated.

The problem is- when somethings such as evidence of global warming is found... again... and again... some people see it as an affront to what they believe- and therefore choose to deny it.

I do as a whole agree with you though. The multi-discipline sciences are too difficult for the average person to duplicate or test for feasibility- so there is a certain "trust" that you have to apply that the peer-review process and duplication by other scientists is working to produce (on average) a better understanding of the world.

Actually, most squirrels I know are in favour of Rick Santorum which makes them conservatives.

Apparantly, squirrels like nuts.

It could probably catch a stomache bug.

They built a gut on a chip? That's nothing... I built my gut on chips back in the 90's.

The real challenge was laying off the chips to make the gut shrink again.

Volcano explosions do not put out radioactive materials on the same scale.
Volcano explosions- the physical explosion is local- not widespread. Soot spreads- but there is a single centre of source.

In fact- there has been extinctions and population declines heavily linked with large volcano explosions due to climactic changes they can incur. So even though Volcanos are not weapons- they do kill.

Humanity has suffered two bottle necks in the past. Using DNA analysis it is estimated at one point our population dropped down below a couple-score. We very nearly went extinct.

We have enough nuclear material on this planet to destroy every urban centre. The radiation would spread in heavy doses to all areas. Climate change is likely- so even if radiation doesn't kill you- the fact that food supplies would be cut off would result in starvation. No water supply would be left un-altered. Survivors could be far-spread and not have interaction. Lower populations are more volatile and likely to die out due to random fluctuations.

What if all they showed on alien cable channels was reality show crap?

"Oh my Gawd, like this bimbo from Orion totally stabbed me in both of my backs. The Pegasus 457 bachelor was like, totally mine."

So, it's not all progress then.

It's not like world conquest or elimination of neighbours HASN'T been attempted before. It's not like it won't be attempted again (if we as a species live long enough).

Don't even need to be competing for resources to be a threat. It could be ideology, mental instability of leaders. Fear from the other side. Anything could drive them to war.

We'll probably be different enough that we can't trade. We'll certainly be different enough that we can't trade daughters in marriage agreements like nations of old did.

Yes, but we are advancing. Wouldn't it be safer to wipe us out BEFORE we're a threat- rather than risk waiting until we might be able to put up a fight?

I expect to see men on street corners around Denver holding signs:

"Will Poo for Food."

Quite sure. Not only that- but it was demonstrated in the 1940's in Japan. There are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. We could wipe ourselves out if we chose.

Will help mine. I always took the "colonize like crazy" approach. By the time rival species are able to attack- you can afford to lose a few planets- and will be so far ahead of them by all other metrics you can quickly build a fleet to defeat them. More planets available makes this strategy even better.

Never played Moo3. But on Moo2- I found this strategy worked: declare war on the strongest enemy- do what it takes to get everyone else that you can to join in... you will get so much kudos for being in a mutal war- everyone will love you... you then take out the next biggest threat (getting everyone to join in)... then the next... then the next... and so on. If you get others to join in each time- your relationship with everyone will sky rocket meaning after the 2nd species you wipe out- you'll be able to get anyone you want to do whatever you want.