The problem with this is we underestimate a) just how bad complete madness can be and b) how long it will take us to reach it. It feels as though we've been sliding towards madness for a good long time now, and I've given up on thinking that we've reached a point at which people will decide that things have gotten bad enough that they need a bit of changing.

I had no idea. Wow. That is a genuinely useful bit of obscure trivia.

I'm frankly not sure about the relation, really, but you should get some credit for linking that since a) Pete & Pete rocks and b) that is one of the catchiest (and lyrically incomprehensible) songs I've ever heard.

Wait, wait. What about 87654?

45678

Nice reference there. I hope that I'm not the only one who got it, just the only one pompous enough to need to inform everyone else that he did, in fact, get it.

I agree. Real explosions are fun. Real fire is fun. I still remember the day in 7th grade when we were finally allowed to use bunsen burners. It is in my top 10, despite losing an eyebrow. I think the danger of getting hurt or, in rare cases that probably involve doing something deeply stupid that might well disqualify you from the gene pool, killed are outweighed by just how a) fun and b) useful learning science can be.

And rulers? Rulers? Are you fucking kidding me?

The point is that I tend to view massive loss of life as a negative. Sure, killing off 99% of the world's population would, in the end, lead to a population that is "more fit." And yes, perhaps we need that sort of thing right now. And yes, the world, science and evolution care fuck all for my indvidual sensibilities. Be that as it may, I'd prefer to live in a time where 99% of humanity (and I have no illusions - I'll be in that 99%) wasn't experiencing natural selection in a very up close and personal fashion.

But from a completely detached and amoral (and not intending to use that word in a judgemental way) point of view, sure, you are totally correct.

Well the issue is, if it's adapt or die, a pretty fucking huge number of people will end up dying. Yes, with the earth being warmer, perhaps the net amount of usable land would increase. But if said usable land is in a different location than the current usable land there might be a few, you know, issues in picking up the entire agricultural infrastructure of the world and relocating it. Especially when you take into account things like national borders which countries tend to be a little touchy about.

So yeah, sure, we'll adapt, it won't be the end of humanity. But the transition is going to suck.

Good point. I am, apparently, stupid. Why on earth am I modded higher than you?

Only this year? Seriously neat trick.

Well organized religion tends to screw things up, to be sure. But then again, organized $InsertAnyGoodIdeaYouLike tends to screw things up.

Personally, while I find the moral/philosophical teachings most important, I also like a bit of abstraction too. That said, it's not really essential to my belief system and I'm happy to acknowledge that, objectively speaking, it's a little silly.

Well no, it's not. You can have Buddhism with or without deities and it works fine either way. But some of Buddhism's claims, in re: the endless cycle of rebirth and suffering have a bit of a non-material feel to them, and veer a little more towards the religious side of things. And it does tend to assimilate whatever sort of deities happen to be around in the countries it ends up.

Of course, the thing about Buddhism is that it "works" even if you do away with all the supernaturalist elements - the Buddha's teachings about suffering etc., applied to a single lifetime, are quite useful (in my opinion, that is)

I'm about to oversimplify again, but one response is the Mahayana Buddhist concept of the bodhisattva - an individual who becomes enlightened but holds back from going all the way with it until all sentient beings have been liberated.