Science of Global Warming

[????????]

OR we use the moon for resources to pack our minds and live for beyond Earth. Then, the brains of the subsequent generations in weightlessness environments develops supermind capabilities and a metahuman evolves.

 

[GOD]

" OR we use the moon for resources to pack our minds and live for beyond Earth. Then, the brains of the subsequent generations in weightlessness environments develops supermind capabilities and a metahuman evolves. "

Or we just practice holding our breath for long enough and one day we will be able to travell to other planets and back without breathing !!! Maybe if we have a nuclear war we will become imune to radiation and will be able to survive the massive amounts we will meet on the way on our journey . We could also take lots of books , walk men and game boys with us to while away the X light years the flight would take !!!!! My questions are how many people can you get in a space shuttle , how many flights will it take to transport all of mankind , the things that they need to build the places where they are going to live and survive plus all their posesions to the moon and further ? And will there be first class , buisnes class , economy class and poor starving people class seats ? What will they cost and will there be in flight movies ?

I found this book in the internet about global warming :-

http://rapidshare.com/files/75034642/iueghss2qvhh.rar

The password is :-

ieqg25ior+#9bh35

 

[????????]

double post

 

[????????]

life beyond Earth doesn't necessarily imply traveling light years away. We could make orbiting cities around the planet itself. Of course there would be in flight movies, and free peanuts and whatnot.

 

[buffachino]

Heartcore, I agree.
Creation is our salvation.

Are human beings an error; a mere virus on a planetary scale?

The computers fine, the software is fucked…

Meduzz, I agree with your last post entirely.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

"We have learned global warming is a myth, a cash cow for the greedy, but the current warming trend is real and extremely dangerous. This warming trend has very little to do with pollution, just as 9/11 had very little to do with Iraq. One of the great lies of the global warming regime is their claim so-called global warming is "preventable". This is a LIE. There is no prevention."
(Mitch Battros, http://earthchangesmedia.com/)

"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings."
(Michael Griffin - NASA's Chief Administrator)

"Lately, I've been inundated with phone calls from venture capitalists, private equity guys, and hedge fundistas. They're coming to me because I'm their environmentalist friend and they all want to know one thing: how they can make a buck off the surge in interest in combating global warming."
(Glen Hurowitz, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-hurowitz/environmentalism-for-bill_b_56580.html

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Terence McKenna perceived the universe as a teliological system, in which the development of technology was something that nature/planet earth actually wants to happen, even if the trial and error phase of it (the industrial revolution, with its many blunders like promoting the use of DDT, tobacco, fluoride and fossil fuels, to name but a few) has a negative effect on the ecosystem. The telios (purpose) may not be the achievement of a perfectly stable biosphere, but rather ... (fill in one of Terence's many interesting speculations). Indeed, leaving this planet may be what is desired of us, but it seems reasonable to assume that a teliological universe will not allow us to move to another planet before we have learned a bit more about pollution, fascism, monotheism etc.

I can imagine we'll eventually colonize Mars. We wouldn't have to destroy any rain forests for that, but rather grow them. We wouldn't have to pollute the oceans bur rather create them.

In any case, I'm sure that even if we managed to establish somewhat of a stable biosphere there, human beings born on that planet would be very much different from those born on Earth. Since the basic rule of astrology would still apply ("life evolves in a mathematically predictable way, calculated on the basis of the exact point in space and time of one's birth"), but everything there would be radically different: length of day, length of year (687 days), and of course the planets revolving around the native (Earth rather than Mars, no Moon etc.). So although they might resemble humans, their psychology (consciousness) and general longevity would be radically different. They would literally be humans who have "ascended" (or descended) to another level of awareness. So even if the Bush family decided to leave us all here to die, and only take their elite friends with them (making sure no one could follow them with their 'Star Wars' shield), their children (those taking birth on planet Mars) would be those whose evolution allows them to exist in that particular matrix of time and space, which may be any of the souls they left behind on planet Earth, especially those who don't mind existing in another reality, i.e. the connoisseurs of hallucination). The good thing about reincarnation is that you don't need a spaceship to move to another planet, there just needs to be a pregnant woman somewhere. This entire paragraph was written for the sole purpose of agitating GOD. :wink:

 

[buffachino]

In response to that post CaduceusMercurius,

We are all in the exact same time and space that we have and always will be in, so it makes no difference when or where the child is born at all. What matters is how.
Neither life nor evolution is mathematically predictable because there is an essential paradoxical integer of choice inherent within all experience. The only differential is the understanding of that choice.

The telios of all existence is novelty. One way or the other, all things produce and embody novelty; we through our technology are both following and resisting this purpose.
And yet through the most destructive vestments of our combined transgression, we construct the primordial chrysalis from which our evolution is born.
Yet when the butterfly transcends, so it must shed its chrysalis.
We too must shed our old form, to embrace the realisation of our infinitude.

Peace.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

We are all in the exact same time and space that we have and always will be in, so it makes no difference when or where the child is born at all. What matters is how.

What is your premise, that we are all in the exact same time and space, based upon?

Maybe our "internal dictionaries" differ.

My definitions for the words time and space are:

Time: Year, month, week, date, hour, minute, second, based upon the Earth's revolution around the Sun.

Space: The location in longitude and latitude on the planet involved, as well as that planet's location amidst all other planetary bodies.

And about "we": It is a fact that each embodied individual perceives the world from a certain location at a certain time. That point of reference goes through a series of time and space locations, and it's the cosmological nature of that reference point (which we perceive as a lifetime) with which astrology is concerned.

I'm not saying anything transcendental (like the self, or awareness, or the atma, i.e. the stuff that's beyond time & space) can be predicted, only the stuff of this world, specifically the body. This includes the flesh & bones, emotions, moods, psychological make-up etc. So if the self (atma) identifies with a body, its experiences can be predicted.

It must be remembered that true astrology is infinitely complex, and that astrologers can only scratch the surface of what can be deducted from a birth chart. The Sun sign readings you read in newspapers is not true astrology. When I talk about astrology, it's not some vague system that divides the year in 12 parts and then tries to predict love and success for these 12 groups of people. I'm talking about a level of astrology which can point out the differences between a twin, born only 30 seconds apart from eachother. There are astrologers (especially in India, though Vedic astrology has become popular in the West as well, and computers have made the many calculations a matter of seconds rather than days or weeks) who can do that.

If you get into "sacred geometry", and learn about the harmonics at play in this divine cosmos, and you learn about fractals, series, cycles and such, you'll realize that there's actually a mathematical basis for astrology. This universe is a harmonic universe. As above, so below. The planets don't influence us, they move in synchronicity with us. When we exercise our "free will", they move accordingly. Weird, but true.

Neither life nor evolution is mathematically predictable because there is an essential paradoxical integer of choice inherent within all experience.

The notion of free will is another premise that's highly debatable. And it explains why you would object to a mathematically predictable universe. I'm not very much interested in a debate over fate and free will. To me they are the same thing, weird as that may sound. Your exercise of free will and your sense of making independent choices is predetermined.

Yet when the butterfly transcends, so it must shed its chrysalis.
We too must shed our old form, to embrace the realisation of our infinitude.

Well said!

 

[????????]

Neither life nor evolution is mathematically predictable because there is an essential paradoxical integer of choice inherent within all experience.

ah I want to say something about this...

I think buffachino was trying to say that we can't disassociate ourselves from the universe and then make predictions about said universe because we are part of it, so in all experience there is our "interference" as default. The premise of making a model that explains and predicts everything in the universe appears erroneous since the model can't be the universe itself; we can only make guesses and bets (probabilities) based in our subjective experiences. I don't know why you brought free will and fate into this...??
although your position seems to me interesting.

 

[buffachino]

My definitions for the words time and space are:

Time: Year, month, week, date, hour, minute, second, based upon the Earth's revolution around the Sun.

Space: The location in longitude and latitude on the planet involved, as well as that planet's location amidst all other planetary bodies.

All of these points are totally subjective to the spectrum of an individuals perception and interpretation of them; none of these exist as an absolute construct which is bound to certain matricis which cannot be altered by variation of perception, thus any prediction is just as valuable as one in a newspaper astrology section because they are formulated by grasping at objects which don’t actually exist.

Time and space are synthetic objects. Their dimensions are relative to the perception of them and gauged by the comparison of experienced perceptual points, concordant with an aspect spectrum of perceptual reality. We are all in the same infinite time and space; it is our perception, and understanding of that perception, which is differential. Thus the only difference between perceived points is the understanding of their relationship as perceptual individuals and as a combined organic whole.

Relationships between macro and microcosms are indeed true; the shared systemic basis of all existence resonates in all perceptual points of infinity. Yet this does not infer that we can predict with any level of impunity that any possible event will occur, because for such an absolute construct to exist as a reference, the possibility of outcomes for concomitant experience is restricted to a specific chain of events which destabilises the flow of existence.
If ones predictions are based of an absolute reference point, none of them could possibly be correct, because all existence is then bound to that point; restricting the possibility of experience of the original prediction.

Mathematics reflects nature, but nature does not reflect mathematics.
Mathematics is simply the rudimentary conceptual and systemic understanding of perceived natural phenomena; thus, its understanding can be interlinked with choice, yet the object of mathematical interpretation does not reflect the possibility of that choice.

I'm not saying anything transcendental can be predicted, only the stuff of this world, specifically the body.

If the body can be predicted, but not the mind, then how are we able to articulate our bodies if they are predisposed to certain absolute events to which our unaffected mind cannot interfere?

All nature operates by the paradigm of the evolutionary paradox; recycling resonant understanding of experience into the perception of consecutive experience through the enactment of choice born from the evolution of that reverberatory understanding.

To cling to an illusory object is to deny yourself the fluidity of your own understanding and thus possibility.

Peace.

 

[GOD]

" We could make orbiting cities around the planet itself "

Whos going to build them , whos going to pay to build them and whos going to live on them . And what will happen to the other 99.99% of humanity that cant aford a ticket ? It would be better / easyer / cheaper to go undergrounnd ...................................and watch films and eat penuts.........

" This entire paragraph was written for the sole purpose of agitating GOD. "

Didnt work , just made me laugh !!! You sound like a born again right wing pseudo religeous christian fanatic . Every few seconds you have to chant your childish magic slogans "Terence Mckenna " , " Arsestrology " , " Chakras " , " sacred geometry " , " vedas " blah , blah , blah , like a jehovas witness selling god , or a junkie pushing heroin / opium for the masses . And you keep contradicting yourself with your confused personal theorys , like a person who lives in a room full of mirors and all they can see is themselves . The sun didnt shine out of Terence Mckennas arse , he didnt die to save me from your sins , his mother wasnt a virgin and we dont need even more confused people selling instant solutions backed with false science . Lets end the dark ages , grow up as a race and stop blind faith and hero worship . I have nothing against uncle Terence but this is getting more like all the things that HeartCore and me are against with christianity , organised religeous hyerarchys , false saviours and faschistoid religeous psycho sekts . Instead of trying to convince us that shit is sugar why dont you just give us a break , get in touch with Randi , prove it and win the million dollars ? The thread was about global warming and the only conection with that and what you preach is hot air .

If i name my tedybear Terence will you sentance me to death ???

 

[WetStaples]

The last two sentences of your post, GOD, were ROFL-worthy.

 

[????????]

Whos going to build them , whos going to pay to build them and whos going to live on them . And what will happen to the other 99.99% of humanity that cant aford a ticket ? It would be better / easyer / cheaper to go undergrounnd ...................................and watch films and eat penuts.........

of course if a scenario like this could happen it would be like a MAJOR humanity event so we assume other things like the government of almost all the world deciding on this and contributing/warring over it or who knows? then not all the people on earth has to move out instantly. Maybe those left (majority) would die, maybe just a bit moves and then more or less go or maybe even people come back or whatever. Although going underground could happen as easily I don push any theory.. but i like to hear the probabilities.

 

[spice]

" Let's end the dark ages, grow up as a race, and stop blind faith and hero worshop"

Fuck-ing A, GOD. Well said.

How in the hell are we going to colonize the moon, or mars, when we do not even fully percieve the implications of how we are ruining our own?

We need to learn to care for our own biosphere and ecosystem before we can concieve of creating one. It's laughably ignorant to imagine that if we run away from the mess we created that somehow it'll just fix itself as soon as we run a few million miles away.

Give ME some of that fairy-dust.

Nowhere was the science refuted effectively. Nor CAN it be.

Why is is so hard for some people to understand the implications of what is going on here.? Because it's complex? NO.

I feel that a lot of it is that people are afraid to embrace the full implications of following these thoughts to their conclusion, which is that a whole shitpot of change is necessary, and it will be forced upon us, as it always has, if we are not prepared to meet it head on and actually take an active role in it's, and our own. destiny and evolution.

Anyone here ever read 'The Invisible LAndscape' by Uncle Terence?

I hope someone here actually has it, as he recounts a story of being deep in the Amazon and observing how, aided by strange tryptamines,
he was able to percieve a single strand of smoke evolve into a full blown weather event, and how he UNDERSTOOD that the implications were that we have input into our climate, in ways which escape conscious perception, He was basically addressing this discussion with those comments.

Also, were Terence here, at this board, I feel safe in ASSURING you he would be telling you about global warming and how real it is. Terence was an anthropologist as well as an Organic chemist and he was cognizant of the connections I speak of here.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

The premise of making a model that explains and predicts everything in the universe

It's unclear who made the model. Modern astrologers didn't make the model, because it already existed. And whoever "invented" it long ago, simply "discovered" what was already there: a relationship between planets and human lives.

One of the oldest astrological techniques we know of is the dasha system, which divides a human life (taken to be 120 years) into 9 periods of differing lengths (for example, the Moon dasha lasting 10 years, the Sun dasha 5 years, etc.), each of those periods divided into subperiods of the same order, which are again divided (you can imagine that at this point computers come in very handy) ad infinitum. If you would make a drawing of all these periods and subperiods, you would see a fractal.

It is this dasha system (only one of thousands of techniques well-versed Vedic astrologers could make use of, including hundreds of other fractal-like divisions of time) which is the unique feature mentioned in all articles written by Western astrologers commenting on Vedic astrology. Because this dasha system actually allows one to make predictions, with more accuracy than any method known to Western astrologers. I find Western astrology pretty much useless for this.

The most mind boggling method in the broad field of astrology, the dasha system, is based on the calculation of a fractal, the starting point of which is one's second of birth (no, not month or day or hour of birth: to be useful, the minute and preferably the second of birth should be known).

So the best predictive system is based on a fractal. Just like...Timewave One, which is based on that silly I-ching.

we can only make guesses and bets (probabilities) based in our subjective experiences. I don't know why you brought free will and fate into this...??

Buffachino brought in "choice". As far as guesses and bets go, yes, I agree, astrologers can only make guesses. But that's because interpreting is and will always be very difficult, because there are literally thousands, if not millions, of factors to weigh. So what all astrologers do is focus in on the things that jump out, that are confirmed all over the place (the birth chart, and the divisional charts etc.), and tell the client about their past, present and future based on those elements.

To illustrate what I mean: it is technically possible to predict which color hair your future partner will have, but no astrologer will waste three months trying to collect the data required to make that prediction. But most astrologers will be able to have a glance at your chart and immediately predict when you will get married, or when in the past you got married, had your first child etc. The more significant and 'mundane' the phenomenon (the start of a deep relationship, child birth, separation etc.) the easier it is to predict when it will happen.

I wouldn't be writing any of this if to me astrology was not a reliable system of analyzing time. To me the mechanisms of astrology are as reliable as the engine of my car. It's not something I believe in. I see it functioning perfectly, on a daily basis.

All of these points are totally subjective to the spectrum of an individuals perception and interpretation of them

Yes, exactly, we're talking about individual experience here. I say there's nothing more real than what we experience moment by moment. Theoretically we may all be one, and all "located" in the same space and time, or beyond space and time, but we're embodied beings now, and we're talking about physical phenomena (such as global warming).

thus any prediction is just as valuable as one in a newspaper astrology section because they are formulated by grasping at objects which don't actually exist.

Well value is a whole other matter. Indeed value is highly subjective. But to get back to the newspaper astrology: the difference between astrology as a cosmic phenomenon and astrology as practiced by human beings are two different things, and then again there is a difference between newspaper astrology and advanced methods of astrology.

Sure, the incoherent noises made by a baby are in no way more or less valuable than the words of Shakespeare or Pythagoras or Plato, but those who have only heard the noise made by babies are not in a position to make any statements on the subject of language or the sophistication of a poem by Shakespeare. GOD for example has no personal experience with the dynamic that exists between the microcosmos and the macrocosmos and thus he harshly ridicules anything which points in that direction. Moreover, every time I try to explain something about the rationale behind it, he blocks his ears and shouts: "Go to Randi! Go to Randi!!"

But to understand life, to understand consciousness, you cannot step over astrology. It's as in your face as the psychedelics are. Like the psychedelic experience, astrology is stranger than you can suppose. And yet it's there, a method anyone can learn in a couple of months.

Mathematics is simply the rudimentary conceptual and systemic understanding of perceived natural phenomena

In that case astrology is nothing more than mathematics. Which means astrology can be tested scientifically, with double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled methods. I have done that a couple of times in my life. I challenged GOD a couple of months ago, but he declined by saying that out of infinite compassion he wouldn't allow me to publicly humiliate myself. Which is another way of saying: "I'm not here to investigate, I'm here to ridicule."

Well, I am here to investigate and learn. And if people like Spice or Buffachino write something I don't know about, I listen to them (if I have the time that is). I don't ridicule them or put them in a box. I honor "Let the best idea win." This forum (and the psychedelic community in general) is a place to share ideas, information and insights, not to defeat or ridicule others. We may make a joke about eachother every once in a while, but the jokes should never replace intellectual exchange.

If the body can be predicted, but not the mind,

What do you mean with mind? If you mean the psyche, or the thoughts and feelings of an individual, then most certainly the mind can be predicted. In fact one can predict nothing but the world as it enters awareness through the senses and the mind.

If with the mind you mean awareness, pure "being" untouched by physical matter and time, then yes indeed, there's nothing that can be predicted about that. We're using the stuff of the world (planets, stars, orbits) to predict the stuff of life (body, thoughts, emotions, response to stimuli etc.). You can't use the stuff of this world to predict anything about that which is not of this world, because that is beyond time and events anyway. Microcosmos, macrocosmos. The true self transcends both. And it may indeed be that what you experience during a DMT flash cannot be predicted by astrology. I'm still investigating that.

then how are we able to articulate our bodies if they are predisposed to certain absolute events to which our unaffected mind cannot interfere?

What do you mean with "articulate our bodies"? Your language is a bit hard to follow for me.

You sound like a born again right wing pseudo religeous christian fanatic . Every few seconds you have to chant your childish magic slogans "Terence Mckenna " , " Arsestrology " , " Chakras " , " sacred geometry " , " vedas " blah , blah , blah , like a jehovas witness selling god , or a junkie pushing heroin / opium for the masses .

I don't care what I sound like to you. I'm just expressing my views on reality, based on my daily experience and what I've read throughout life. I think we all do that, which means we should respect eachother and not ridicule others if that is not necessary. Yes, every few seconds I mention certain subjects and personalities that I find fascinating, but is what you do every few seconds in any way superior? You are mentioning Randi or some other hardcore atheist whenever you cannot handle an argument. And in fact you mention chakras a whole lot more than me.

And you keep contradicting yourself with your confused personal theorys , like a person who lives in a room full of mirors and all they can see is themselves.

When someone contradicts himself, it should be easy to point out. So go ahead, point out my contradictions so I can see where my world view needs revision. I'm open to revision. Always have been, aways will be.

The sun didnt shine out of Terence Mckennas arse , he didnt die to save me from your sins , his mother wasnt a virgin and we dont need even more confused people selling instant solutions backed with false science.

Well, maybe you're right and the sun actually shines out of Randi's arse, but this is a trivial issue. Seriously, the reason why I and many others here quote Terence is because he had some great metaphors, not because we accept his words as dogma. He did not do so himself. Indeed, for every theory he held, he had several alternative ones. His lectures were not about the absolute truth, but about his ideas. Ideas. Nothing more than ideas. And it just so happens that many of his ideas kick ass! You don't think so? Fine. But don't say we're all blind sheep because we dig a certain author.

By the way, what defines false science, and what defines true science? Is a harmonic universe somehow less scientific than a utterly chaotic and disharmonic universe? Did your scientists somehow gather all the data to prove their "Big Bang theory"? If so, why is it still called a theory? Until it can be proven (to Randi if you insist) that the universe indeed sprang from a point, it's still a theory, and "real science" is based on something which may or may not be true.

Lets end the dark ages , grow up as a race and stop blind faith and hero worship.

All of us here agree with you on that. But your notion of blind faith is kind of, well, blind... You're too fanatic, and thus perceive others who don't agree with you as fanatic. I'm not lashing out at math am I? Did I ridicule the law of gravity anywhere? No. I have no issues with these things, for I have investigated them (mostly in highschool) and understood that they make sense, on some level at least. But have you studied astrology with the same amount of time and energy as I have studied biology, chemistry and mathematics? No. You have not studied it at all. You rely on the judgment of Randi that it just has to be bogus. If there was actually some truth to astrology, that would contradict your entire view of this world. You have built such a high wall of skepticism, indeed making it an integral part of your persona, that you will lash out at anything which threatens to expose your myth.

me are against with christianity , organised religeous hyerarchys , false saviours and faschistoid religeous psycho sekts.

Sir, where did I bring in hierarchies? Where did I bring in (false) saviours? What about astrology sounds like fascism to you? How does the appreciation of an Irish bard equal religious psycho sects?

Instead of trying to convince us that shit is sugar why dont you just give us a break , get in touch with Randi , prove it and win the million dollars?

And if I prove it to him, will it matter more to you than when I prove it to you directly?

The thread was about global warming

I know, and this subject came up in the context of eventually leaving the Earth behind to head for another planet. But time/astronomy/astrology is certainly linked to global warming as well, as there are two factors at work: pollution by the industrial and technological evolution of mankind (which can hopefully be corrected to some degree, or at least learned from so we don't mess up elsewhere), and the cycles of the Sun, ending several of these cycles in 2012.

How in the hell are we going to colonize the moon, or mars, when we do not even fully percieve the implications of how we are ruining our own?

I already said that: it's unlikely we're going to leave this place before we learn what we need to learn. Maybe we'll know enough around 2012, maybe it will be 30 or 60 years later, but it's not unimaginable that we learn enough about energy and radiation and pollution to not make the same mistakes again. In fact we already know a shitload!! Cannabis as a much better source of fuel and fabrics for example, solar energy perhaps, Tesla, vegetarianism or a diet approximating that, etc. Even now the problem is not lack of understanding, but the fact that this world is not ours, but literally owned by a couple of bankers who don't give a shit about the future of this planet.

We need to learn to care for our own biosphere and ecosystem before we can concieve of creating one.

We? Well, I do know the principles of environmentalism, but I cannot possibly afford myself to live by those principles in all regards. I don't have the money to buy all my vegetables at the organic healthfood store (in which I've been working since 1999). I don't have the time to walk to another country during my holiday. "We" have some options, but they are limited. We all know we should avoid the use of plastic, but all food is packaged like that, even in healthfood stores.

We should stop feeling guilty about the current state of affairs. It's not our fault, it was inevitable. If you're born in the West, you're going to live in a world of electricity and plastic and way too much radiation. We must gradually replace the source of that electricity and plastic by more environmentally friendly materials (NOT energy saving lamps which ironically contain an enormous amount of mercury...), such as HEMP!!!

It's laughably ignorant to imagine that if we run away from the mess we created that somehow it'll just fix itself as soon as we run a few million miles away.

Yes, but don't say I'm ignorant, because I already mentioned in the original post that:

"Indeed, leaving this planet may be what is desired of us, but it seems reasonable to assume that a teliological universe will not allow us to move to another planet before we have learned a bit more about pollution, fascism, monotheism etc."

he was able to percieve a single strand of smoke evolve into a full blown weather event

I think he also describes that event in True Hallucinations. And yes, of course our actions have an impact on the environment, including the weather. No one argues that. It's just a matter of "to what extent?" And "to what extent can we really reverse this trend?"

Also, were Terence here, at this board, I feel safe in ASSURING you he would be telling you about global warming and how real it is.

Well, indeed he did mention global warming a number of times in his recorded lectures. But he was not into hammering on one particular cause of the effect, and telling us we should feel bad about ourselves and leave the cities. In fact he didn't care much about linear thinking and causality at all. The phenomenon of global warming is very complex. It's up to each individual to decide how he or she wants to approach it.

I think it's unavoidable. Our development as a species somehow had to include the pollution, war and ignorance we have gone through. Now's the time to reduce the pollution, end all this money-driven war, and reveal the ignorance of monotheism and narrow-minded, short-sighted, and so-called scientific thought. Bring in the psychedelics and talk.

What do you all think?

 

[spice]

That it begins with educating yourself properly.

 

[spice]

Perhaps you are correct, and it is something that we are destined to go through, a growing pain, that can't be avoided.

But what if you are wrong? What if we find out down the road that global warming is exclusively of our making? What then? Pat ourselves on the back for having 20/20 hindsight?

You are willing to grant astrology the status of 'influence', but not organic chemistry? Help me here.....one does not need to understand mechanics to drive a car....the biosphere is a closed system with a lot fewer variables than the astrophysical universe.

No, Terence wasn't 'into hammering on one particular cause'..... neither am I ....there are myriad causes, most of them industry driven.
All of them are driven by the mindless machines of greed and ignorance.

I didn't call you ignorant. I said that the whole ideation of 'colonizing other planets' is ignorant, in the truest sense of the word, and I stand by that statement. Don't choose to be offended by it.

Also, you say that you cant afford to buy all your vegetables organic, etc.....dont absolutize something that has to be accomplished incrementally.No ones asking anyone to fix anything by themselves. Whats being asked is that each individual takes it upon him/herself to educate themselves about physical phenomenae that occur within their biosphere.

I assert that the laws of physical science are better understood by humanity than those of esoteric subjects such as astrology, etc and therefore are subject to more accurate interpretation and advancement.


"....and telling us we should feel bad about ourselves and leave the cities "


Why must accepting responsibility equate to feeling bad about oneself? I DO NOT understand that.

If someone feels bad about themselves after becoming cognizant, then I would venture the opinion that what they are feeling is the collective guilt of humanity, a heavy albatross to sport around ones neck ( water, water, everywhere, nary a drop to drink ).....there's a difference between 'feeling bad' and accepting a part in being responsible.

Change begins with the individual.

Thinking must come BEFORE action.

 

[HeartCore]

This is where you will loose me in discussion about validity of Astrology:

To illustrate what I mean: it is technically possible to predict which color hair your future partner will have, but no astrologer will waste three months trying to collect the data required to make that prediction.

That reminds me of a 'Magic do it yourself' book which I read at age 16 or 17. It stated, among other things, that it would be possible to manifest a hundred guiden bill out of thin air but because of all the energy needed to do it, nobody would actually do it.

I don't oppose astrology because I think it's preposterous to think that all these moving massive bodies have influence on everything, except us. Predicting someon's hair color using astrology, I don't believe it's possible but that's just an opinion

 

[Forkbender]

All worldviews are true in the mind of the people believing in them.