What is wrong with this thinking?

satansbed

I think this is an appropriate quote

"necessity is the mother of invention"

If we didn't need to evolve and adapt to changing situations we would still all be single celled organisms swimming in the tasty primordial soup

Scientific “progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population”

brianlux

satansbed wrote:

I think this is an appropriate quote

"necessity is the mother of invention"

If we didn't need to evolve and adapt to changing situations we would still all be single celled organisms swimming in the tasty primordial soup

Scientific “progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population”

I've had many a discussion about the roll of science and technology in pulling us out of the nose dive that civilization and humanity are in. I'm not against it, I just haven't been convinced it will work. It's like disease- we keep getting better at curing diseases and yet, all the while, new and tougher strains appear. It just makes more sense to me to work on prevention in the first place. But what can I say? In all sincerity, good luck to us all!

satansbed

brianlux wrote:

satansbed wrote:

I think this is an appropriate quote

"necessity is the mother of invention"

If we didn't need to evolve and adapt to changing situations we would still all be single celled organisms swimming in the tasty primordial soup

Scientific “progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population”

I've had many a discussion about the roll of science and technology in pulling us out of the nose dive that civilization and humanity are in. I'm not against it, I just haven't been convinced it will work. It's like disease- we keep getting better at curing diseases and yet, all the while, new and tougher strains appear. It just makes more sense to me to work on prevention in the first place. But what can I say? In all sincerity, good luck to us all!

Actually disease is a good lens to use to look at at human progress.

take cancer for example. thousands and even hundreds of years ago it was almost unheard of. but this is not because people where living better back then, in fact the opposite is true. most people died too young to ever develop cancer.
(and yes environmental and lifestyle factors do have a role in cancer but not enough to make it go from non existant to as prevalent as it is now)
so while cancer is obviously a terrible illness. i would much prefer to live long enough to develop it than not.

catefrances

brianlux wrote:

...
2. Reduce human population. The benefits of this are obvious: more resources to go around leading to fewer resource wars and more habitats for other forms of life on earth.
...

how you gonna do this? who is gonna make the decision as to who can and who cant reproduce? and by what criteria will it be decided?

I have always been of the opinion that the problem isn't too many people, its the management of the earth. humans like to think theyre special and that theyre the peak of evolution.. that were separate from the rest of the animal kingdom(which I might point out seems to manage living in symbiosis with the planet), but look at what that supposed prime position and elitist attitude has done to us and more importantly and potentially more devastatingly, what its done to the planet. we treat this planet as if its the infinite source of all we need.. we give little thought to the future... cause its not our problem, when in fact is it. we take and take and take cause by nature we are a selfish species. we don't even think about how the disappearance of a species or an ecosystem might affect us.. we just shrug our shoulders saying the problem is too big, when in fact the problem is us.

backseatLover12

brianlux wrote:

My wife and I were talking today about the current situation in Syria and I was reminded once again about a basic premise I’ve had for several years now- my four easy steps to a healthier planet and living in peace and well being:

1. Protect the environment. This makes sense on several levels: it would give us more beauty in our world, it would preserve much biodiversity and it would create a cleaner environment which is the first step toward preventing disease in humans and other living things (rather than constantly trying to cure diseases while new ones keep cropping up.) And of course a healthier planet would mean slowing anthropogenic global warming.

2. Reduce human population. The benefits of this are obvious: more resources to go around leading to fewer resource wars and more habitats for other forms of life on earth.

3. Practice conservation and sharing. Depleted resources lead to resource wars. Conservation and sharing lead to greater economic and social equity, creates good will and leaves more for other species with whom we share this planet.

4. Practice tolerance- in other words, stop being so up tight about what others do in the privacy of their own home and let people have their own beliefs, even if they do seem a little far fetched. Religious differences are the other major cause of war. And homophobia, sexism and racism, etc., deserve no place in the world today.

That’s it. That simple. Yes, I realize this may sound a bit over simplified but to my way of thinking, not by much. Don’t these things make sense? Why don’t we humans do what is logical? This truly baffles me. Call me an idealist but please, don’t call me illogical.

Love it. All of it! (although I don't know about #2, although I see the need to notice potential issues with a growing population, I can't see how we can purposely stop it effectively.) Especially #4; Intolerance is what breeds hate.

backseatLover12

hedonist wrote:

Forget tolerance...just live and let live.

Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Treat our planet as an extension of ourselves...because it is.

Every animal, plant, mountain, and on.

Be the change you want to see.

Don't just talk the talk.

Live it, and be it, as best we can.

(as best I can)

You're right. It really is that simple - or should be.

Um, that IS tolerance.

hedonist

backseatLover12 wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Forget tolerance...just live and let live.

Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Treat our planet as an extension of ourselves...because it is.

Every animal, plant, mountain, and on.

Be the change you want to see.

Don't just talk the talk.

Live it, and be it, as best we can.

(as best I can)

You're right. It really is that simple - or should be.

Um, that IS tolerance.

Um...maybe our definitions are different.

I see tolerance as finger-tapping. "OK, I'll force myself to put up with this."

Which is why I said live and let live.

brianlux

hedonist wrote:

backseatLover12 wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Forget tolerance...just live and let live.

Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Treat our planet as an extension of ourselves...because it is.

Every animal, plant, mountain, and on.

Be the change you want to see.

Don't just talk the talk.

Live it, and be it, as best we can.

(as best I can)

You're right. It really is that simple - or should be.

Um, that IS tolerance.

Um...maybe our definitions are different.

I see tolerance as finger-tapping. "OK, I'll force myself to put up with this."

Which is why I said live and let live.

This reminds me of how badly (at least to my way of thinking) we need a different word. I'm guessing you both have similar views about the concept of "tolerance" but the word, the word seems to hang us up. Any suggestions for a word (or phrase) that works better, that unites the thought behind it?

hedonist

brianlux wrote:

hedonist wrote:

backseatLover12 wrote:

Um, that IS tolerance.

Um...maybe our definitions are different.

I see tolerance as finger-tapping. "OK, I'll force myself to put up with this."

Which is why I said live and let live.

This reminds me of how badly (at least to my way of thinking) we need a different word. I'm guessing you both have similar views about the concept of "tolerance" but the word, the word seems to hang us up. Any suggestions for a word (or phrase) that works better, that unites the thought behind it?

I'm not so sure it's about a new word; that's semantics.

Me, I tend to find comments prefaced by "Um" to be a bit rude and condescending; if I've misread the prior post, apologies.

And actually, even if I didn't misread?

All's well and the world is still doing its thing.

backseatLover12

hedonist wrote:

brianlux wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Um...maybe our definitions are different.

I see tolerance as finger-tapping. "OK, I'll force myself to put up with this."

Which is why I said live and let live.

This reminds me of how badly (at least to my way of thinking) we need a different word. I'm guessing you both have similar views about the concept of "tolerance" but the word, the word seems to hang us up. Any suggestions for a word (or phrase) that works better, that unites the thought behind it?

I'm not so sure it's about a new word; that's semantics.

Me, I tend to find comments prefaced by "Um" to be a bit rude and condescending; if I've misread the prior post, apologies.

And actually, even if I didn't misread?

All's well and the world is still doing its thing.

I apologize if the 'Um' sounds abrasive, I didn't mean it that way. Rather, what you wrote does tend to sound like tolerance to me, and to hear that it's not what you think of the word threw me because the word 'toleration' would mean to put up with someone or something begrudginly.


From http://grammarist.com/usage/tolerance-toleration/
Toleration also comes up often in reference to reluctant sorts of tolerance. Think cats and dogs living together, neighboring peoples who were recently at war with each other, or law-enforcement agencies that look the other way on minor traffic offenses. This sense probably came about because tolerance, a defining quality of a progressive modern society, has positive connotations, while toleration of this sort is not positive, but thorny and precarious.

Toleration has also recently been defined as a particular act of tolerance, but we’re having trouble finding 21st-century examples that bear this out (which is not to say they’re not out there somewhere—we’ll add them if we find them).



From http://www.kdab.afcent.af.mil/news/stor ... =123185468

What's the difference between tolerance and toleration?

donnaruhl

Well Brianlux,
Tolerance is the wrong word.
We as a People have been doing it for years.
Adherence is more like it.
If we only practiced what we preached.

brianlux

hedonist wrote:

I'm not so sure it's about a new word; that's semantics.

Me, I tend to find comments prefaced by "Um" to be a bit rude and condescending; if I've misread the prior post, apologies.

And actually, even if I didn't misread?

All's well and the world is still doing its thing.

Yeah, "um". I try more and more to avoid that.

And yes, it's just semantics but I love good words- even to the point of driving myself batty looking for just the right word at times. (The closest books within reach at my desk are my dictionary, thesaurus and my favorite reference book, my Kipfer, The Writer's Digest Flip Dictionary.

In any case, I was hoping YOU, hedonist, would have just the right word.

Um, c'mon, spit it out.

catefrances

sometimes I think tolerance and tolerate have a negative connotation. who wants to be merely tolerated? tis as if someone is saying we'll be civilised towards you for appearances sake when really we don't want to have anything to do with you.

brianlux

catefrances wrote:

sometimes I think tolerance and tolerate have a negative connotation. who wants to be merely tolerated? tis as if someone is saying we'll be civilised towards you for appearances sake when really we don't want to have anything to do with you.

Right, Cate! I think I would rather have people who really don't care for sexagenarians (just to use a personal example and beside, it's a cool word ) ignore me rather than "tolerate" me. So how about "accepting"? Is that closer? I'd rather someone say, "So, you're a sexagenarian? No biggie, I can accept that," or ignore me rather than say, "Yeah, ok, you're a sexagenarian, I guess I can tolerate that".

And getting back to original thought in this thread, if that became more the norm than maybe at least my premise #four would not be too far fetched.

backseatLover12

Now, I feel as though I'm just being tolerated here, with no one acknowledging my post as to the difference in the two words...

That's alright, I've gotten the feeling since starting to post on this forum, that you're a tight knit group with no room for a new and different face with a differing perspective.

brianlux

backseatLover12 wrote:

Now, I feel as though I'm just being tolerated here, with no one acknowledging my post as to the difference in the two words...

That's alright, I've gotten the feeling since starting to post on this forum, that you're a tight knit group with no room for a new and different face with a differing perspective.

It does seem like this is a "tight knit" group, backseatLover12, but I for one (and I'm sure others here too) very much appreciate seeing new and more posts from others here. Too often it's the same few people speaking up here so, I'm glad for your input- especially as it is well thought out and articulate. Don't go!

Personally, I'm fine with your take on tolerance. No major objections. I'm just looking for a word or phrase that is a better fit and maybe I'm the one who is short-sighted for not finding "tolerance" the right fit. I like "acceptance" but am still not sure that is the best term yet still, I myself used "tolerance" in the opening post because it is a term we are all familiar with.

brianlux

backseatLover12 wrote:

What's the difference between tolerance and toleration?

I read somewhere that tolerance is the process or act of acceptance without compromise whereas toleration is acceptance with compromise.

Also, words change and I've been around a while so seeing this modern definition of tolerance from dictionary.com I'm thinking better of it:

tol·er·ance, noun: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

But the word still doesn't quite ring right for me. Too bad, so sad, eh?

Drowned Out

What if none of it matters?
What if there is no god, no afterlife, no soul to save, and no meaning to it all?
What if we stopped worrying about the planet? She has no thought for us....She will eventually murder us in our sleep and WIN the war we've waged, anyway...What if there is no reason for tolerance?...fuck the lifeforms we destroy along the way; morality is a man-made construct anyway.
Why should we believe differently? Because the blades of grass called your name when you were really fucking high, or because that one time you got a nature chub while watching chipmunks play at sunset? Because I heard a noise in the next room while thinking of a dead relative or noticed an odd trick of light in a photo? Because a dream came true, or someone played connect the dots on a star map, or because hallmark told me love conquers all? Is it because we were told to believe in believing, and that 'faith' is something accepted by sane men? God, a higher power, nature, love, 'science'....what if all faith is blind? What if nihilism is...
And to think I called myself an idealist, just a few hours ago....

:wave:

catefrances

Drowned Out wrote:

What if none of it matters?
What if there is no god, no afterlife, no soul to save, and no meaning to it all?
What if we stopped worrying about the planet? She has no thought for us....She will eventually murder us in our sleep and WIN the war we've waged, anyway...What if there is no reason for tolerance?...fuck the lifeforms we destroy along the way; morality is a man-made construct anyway.
Why should we believe differently? Because the blades of grass called your name when you were really fucking high, or because that one time you got a nature chub while watching chipmunks play at sunset? Because I heard a noise in the next room while thinking of a dead relative or noticed an odd trick of light in a photo? Because a dream came true, or someone played connect the dots on a star map, or because hallmark told me love conquers all? Is it because we were told to believe in believing, and that 'faith' is something accepted by sane men? God, a higher power, nature, love, 'science'....what if all faith is blind? What if nihilism is...
And to think I called myself an idealist, just a few hours ago....

:wave:

there is no god... there is no afterlife... I believe I have a soul.. i call it my conscience. and the only meaning life has is that which we ourselves give it. the earth will not murder us in our sleep. we will cause our own destruction.. as for earth winning the war we are waging ... she may do by default cause she isn't at war with us... we are at war with her.. and ourselves.

catefrances

brianlux wrote:

catefrances wrote:

sometimes I think tolerance and tolerate have a negative connotation. who wants to be merely tolerated? tis as if someone is saying we'll be civilised towards you for appearances sake when really we don't want to have anything to do with you.

Right, Cate! I think I would rather have people who really don't care for sexagenarians (just to use a personal example and beside, it's a cool word ) ignore me rather than "tolerate" me. So how about "accepting"? Is that closer? I'd rather someone say, "So, you're a sexagenarian? No biggie, I can accept that," or ignore me rather than say, "Yeah, ok, you're a sexagenarian, I guess I can tolerate that".

And getting back to original thought in this thread, if that became more the norm than maybe at least my premise #four would not be too far fetched.

if I have a problem with someone it wont be because of their age, eye colour, height, place of birth or musical tastes. itll be because theyre either ignorant or an arsehole.. or maybe even both. if you, generally speaking, don't trepass against me and I wont have a problem with you. however if you fuck with me or those I hold closest then we will have a problem.