• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Z --> Z^2 + c
Staff member
We have heard the rationales offered by the superpowers. We know who speaks for the nations; but who speaks for the human species? Who speaks for earth?

From an extraterrestrial perspective, our global civilization is clearly on the edge of failure and the most important task it faces is preserving the lives and well-being of its citizens and the future habitability of the planet. If we are willing to live with the growing likelihood of nuclear war, shouldn't we also be willing to explore vigorously every possible means to prevent nuclear war? Shouldn't we consider in every nation major changes in the traditional ways of doing things, a fundamental restructuring of economic, political, social and religious institutions? We have reached a point where there can be no more special interests or special cases. Nuclear arms threaten every person on the earth.

Fundamental changes in society are sometimes labeled impractical or contrary to human nature: as if nuclear war were practical or as if there were only one human nature. Rut fundamental changes can clearly be made. We are surrounded by them. In the last two centuries abject slavery, which was with us for thousands of years, has almost entirely been eliminated in a stirring world wide revolution. Women, systematically mistreated for millennia, are gradually gaining the political and economic power traditionally denied to them. And some wars of aggression have recently been stopped or curtailed because of a revulsion felt by the people in the aggressor nations. The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and to rabid nationalism are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet.


- Carl Sagan

Full text here

Thoughts, anyone?
 
We have heard the rationales offered by the superpowers. We know who speaks for the nations; but who speaks for the human species? Who speaks for earth?

From an extraterrestrial perspective, our global civilization is clearly on the edge of failure and the most important task it faces is preserving the lives and well-being of its citizens and the future habitability of the planet. If we are willing to live with the growing likelihood of nuclear war, shouldn't we also be willing to explore vigorously every possible means to prevent nuclear war? Shouldn't we consider in every nation major changes in the traditional ways of doing things, a fundamental restructuring of economic, political, social and religious institutions? We have reached a point where there can be no more special interests or special cases. Nuclear arms threaten every person on the earth.

Fundamental changes in society are sometimes labeled impractical or contrary to human nature: as if nuclear war were practical or as if there were only one human nature. Rut fundamental changes can clearly be made. We are surrounded by them. In the last two centuries abject slavery, which was with us for thousands of years, has almost entirely been eliminated in a stirring world wide revolution. Women, systematically mistreated for millennia, are gradually gaining the political and economic power traditionally denied to them. And some wars of aggression have recently been stopped or curtailed because of a revulsion felt by the people in the aggressor nations. The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and to rabid nationalism are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet.

- Carl Sagan

Full text here

Thoughts, anyone?

Considering genocide still occurs, very few nations actually accept women as equals, and religious chauvinism is as rampant as ever I'm not sure he makes a very good point. Man is aggressive by nature. Also, considering we can hardly find a society with our sattelites, unless they can defy the speed of light rule with the wormhole theory, then who cares what aliens think. Man is warlike by nature. Once we try to make worldwide peace someone will attempt to take over the world. It's in man's nature. Murders did not stop. Quest for power did not stop. Wars did not stop. Ideals have not changes among the religions. Unless one nation becomes so powerful that it can convince the rest of the world of it's ideals his vision will not happen. Even then, it comes from might makes right. Not some "we all will grow up" ideal.

Yes, some of the things I have said can be desputed as to the how often things happen...yet still exist and will not end. They simply need to be contained by might of the "righteous." Too bad it is often in history the righteous become perverted by power.
 
Upvote 0
christianity vs. islam is hardly a sign of improvement. it's just a new flavor on the same old humanity.

how exactly does he propose we eliminate nuclear weapons? Such a task is virtually impossible.

as scott suggests, racism, sexism, and "religious" persecution still runs rampant in this world.

If he's basing this off of the USA, there is an alarming trend of relative truth developing in america... which makes punishing a wayward child difficult, let alone ridding the world of nuclear danger.
 
Upvote 0
Maybe I pulled out the wrong quote..... Read the link.

Basically you guys just argued, "well, there aint shit we can do about it, so......"

His point is not that those things have been or would soon be irradicated. Those were examples of how the very "It's impossible to change" shit you guys just argued isn't a valid counter arguement.

His was to ponder the question, will man survive?
 
Upvote 0
how exactly do you answer a question like that? I give mankind an 91.243 chance of survival...? I think there is indeed a serious risk that transcends countries, races, etc as he suggested.
Not sure what should be done about it.

Perhaps our comments are off topic due to being invalid counter arguments. I admit to reading the text here at BP only. What are your thoughts on the issue?
 
Upvote 0
Has mankind come a long way in a thousand years? without a question. Does it still have a long way to go in the next 1000 in order to survive? Yes. Remember what Gandhi said when you start to question if we will make it: </p>"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always."
 
Upvote 0
Has mankind come a long way in a thousand years? without a question. Does it still have a long way to go in the next 1000 in order to survive? Yes. Remember what Gandhi said when you start to question if we will make it:
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always."
I understand Ghandi's point, but he lived a pre-nuclear world. Then a tyrant could rule for some time, and be overcome. In our world, a tyrant can destroy everything as we know it.

BTW...I still didn't read the whole article yet.
 
Upvote 0
Maybe I pulled out the wrong quote..... Read the link.

Basically you guys just argued, "well, there aint shit we can do about it, so......"

His point is not that those things have been or would soon be irradicated. Those were examples of how the very "It's impossible to change" shit you guys just argued isn't a valid counter arguement.

His was to ponder the question, will man survive?

I would argue that those things are not erradicted, they are supressed. People who have different ideals, or look different will always have problems. Just go to your local club. Watch someone "good looking" vs. a "fat slob." Are they treated different? It's human nature. We need to deal with human nature, not some Utopian ideal.
 
Upvote 0
Our greatest obstacle to survival is ourselves. No one can agree on what is right and what is wrong. Its the beauty and despair of "freewill".

Religion, for all its usefulness and good intentions, is the root of mankind's problems. Past, present, and future. Few things bring out raw emotion like a heated debate about religion. In history we have seen entire religous factions under extreme oppression. Persecution of some religions still exists to this day. The "My heaven is better than your heaven" argument going on around the world is likely the thing that is going to send us all to heaven.

Mankind has progressed. But we have a long way to go.
 
Upvote 0
I never understand why people want to philosophize about where mankind is going. Mankind is going the same place it has always gone. People do not change. Human nature does not change. What has driven us for 10,000 plus years, drives us today. We like to pretend we have "advanced"...No we haven't...Good vs. evil is a constant. As one generation's evil is fought off and defeated, another generation's evil rises again and destroys what's good. This naive idea that we will someday all live together in love and harmony is frankly laughable. The fight never ends...Good or evil, you either continue the fight or you give up...Get used to it. Get over it...Will mankind survive? Of course it will...Survival is guaranteed because both good and evil want survival...Neither are willing to give away what is the final prize, and neither will ever achieve the final victory and victory is what both want, not extinction...Carl Sagan was an idiot...He should have been an historian if he wanted to comment on this type of thing...Looking at the stars through a telescope isn't going to teach you anything about mankind or human nature...Outside of his specific field, he has no more credibility than you or I, period...
 
Upvote 0
I would argue that those things are not erradicted, they are supressed. People who have different ideals, or look different will always have problems. Just go to your local club. Watch someone "good looking" vs. a "fat slob." Are they treated different? It's human nature. We need to deal with human nature, not some Utopian ideal.

Read the link yet? He addresses "human nature."

Josh, if I may be so blunt, if you don't want to read the link, then stay out of the discussion. I don't want a percentage - to "ponder" does not mean "to answer." As for my view, I'll discuss this topic later today. I got some stuff I need to accomplish this AM. But, I wanted to get this idea out there when I thought of it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I never understand why people want to philosophize about where mankind is going. Mankind is going the same place it has always gone. People do not change. Human nature does not change. What has driven us for 10,000 plus years, drives us today. We like to pretend we have "advanced"...No we haven't...Good vs. evil is a constant. As one generation's evil is fought off and defeated, another generation's evil rises again and destroys what's good. This naive idea that we will someday all live together in love and harmony is frankly laughable. The fight never ends...Good or evil, you either continue the fight or you give up...Get used to it. Get over it...Will mankind survive? Of course it will...Survival is guaranteed because both good and evil want survival...Neither are willing to give away what is the final prize, and neither will ever achieve the final victory and victory is what both want, not extinction...Carl Sagan was an idiot...He should have been an historian if he wanted to comment on this type of thing...Looking at the stars through a telescope isn't going to teach you anything about mankind or human nature...Outside of his specific field, he has no more credibility than you or I, period...

What do you do for a living, Saw? You appear to be some sort of good evil specialist. Anyway, what do you do, apparently it isn't simply looking at the starts through a telescope, that tought you all about mankind and human nature? If I told you Sagan was a philosopher instead of an astronomer would your position change? Why isnt' Sagan an Philosopher?

Winston Churchill was an idiot, if he wanted to say things like what's in your sig line he should have been an English teacher.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I never understand why people want to philosophize about where mankind is going. Mankind is going the same place it has always gone. People do not change. Human nature does not change. What has driven us for 10,000 plus years, drives us today. We like to pretend we have "advanced"...No we haven't...Good vs. evil is a constant. As one generation's evil is fought off and defeated, another generation's evil rises again and destroys what's good. This naive idea that we will someday all live together in love and harmony is frankly laughable. The fight never ends...Good or evil, you either continue the fight or you give up...Get used to it. Get over it...Will mankind survive? Of course it will...Survival is guaranteed because both good and evil want survival...Neither are willing to give away what is the final prize, and neither will ever achieve the final victory and victory is what both want, not extinction...Carl Sagan was an idiot...He should have been an historian if he wanted to comment on this type of thing...Looking at the stars through a telescope isn't going to teach you anything about mankind or human nature...Outside of his specific field, he has no more credibility than you or I, period...

there is absolutely nothing further i could possibly add to that. perfectly stated saw.
 
Upvote 0
BKB, as much as I respect you I have to say that Sagan's comments are absurd. Not to mention that this 20-year old essay is hopelessly outdated. Increasing likelihood of nuclear war? That line might have resonated back in 1985 but today it sounds like a Slim Whitman tune. The earth is a single organism? Please. Nothing like cheapening your thoughts on cosmology by adding a poor imitation of Shirley McLain to the last chapter of your book. Alas, Prof. Sagan now knows the real truth. Too bad we can't hear what he thinks about it now..
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top