colin42 How many pages of examples do you want? GM foods peddled as the answer to world hunger. I don’t see any effect so far.
Well that’s just lying-marketing. People have always lied to promote their products-services.
Computers pretty useless in a country where the majority of its country cannot read and do not have electricity.
But the computer still
works the same way as it would here, and actually has even more demand over there, it’s just they need to focus on other areas of science Britain
did in the 50’s, like getting a National Electricity Grid first.
The fact the high end of technology does not follow until you have got the low end sorted out, surely provides little logic to argue neither the high
or low end of technology is of any use?
Really? Then the oil spill in the gulf due to risk taking of a few for profit is not an example? The deaths of thousands in Bopal (8000 in
three days) and still kills today 30 years later with the plant still polluting. Science has not helped here has it.
Pretty much everything
in this world does both good and bad and science is no exception. However without science most of the world’s population would never have been born.
Would that have been progress?
250 years ago it Thomas Malthus famously predicted starvation would become inevitable now the world had exceeded 1 billion
Every overpopulation doomsayer since him has been wrong, but it’s only because of progress in science.
The third world is kept as the third world to protect cheap resources and high profits. Are you telling me that the 1% is not directly to
As said we have 1% in whatever human society, be them tribal, capitalist or communist. All these 1%’s tend to consist of (mostly)
ruthless and immoral people, and in this way have proven to be a stubbornly permanent feature of the human society –undoubtedly predating
However the 1% will and are viewing the third world as an investment dream –economic opportunity, and one need only look at China-India to see that.
But only science (through encouraging efficiency, and making recycling profitable) could liberate all the world’s poor, and make that liberation an
opportunity for all the worlds rich.
The malnourished burn wood to cook and for warmth, destroying their environment because they have no choice and cannot get an education to give
them a choice
Nearly everywhere that is poor lacks a Western culture. I.e. that tend to be countries that believe woman should not work,
homosexuals should be killed, tribal-religious feuds should be sustained, religion must be compulsory, conversion should be met with the death
penalty, bribery-gifts to tribal elders is a way of life.
So I don’t blame our
1% for this, but e.g. Africa’s and Afghanistan’s 1% (who as it happens tend to actually be much poorer than our
bottom 10%!!!) and I blame culture, particularly the politically correct assertion that all cultures are equal when obviously a culture-society
that’s religiously & socially intolerant is extremely inferior to our own (both economically and in life expectancy) almost in direct proportion to
it’s own intolerance and even outright hostility to those who are educated (particularly woman -51% of ones population!!!)
I said science is important. Science will help us turn things around but it is not the solution, it is part of the solution and you need an
education to put it to use
Well good luck educating them.
So far Western culture-technology comes first, then education follows. It was the same in Britain 200 years ago during the industrial revolution, just
as it’s equally true in Africa today. But education before there’s many places for educated people only encourages “a brain drain” on
developing countries as their most educated flee towards America-Europe-China –in short anywhere that’s more Western than home, that will have
And you think a war engineered to get control of resources for a few helps your stance how?
Because I don’t moan about ideology or
morality. I make a much more powerful argument, by arguing what I believe to the case which is the wars in Iraq-Afghanistan were a mistake both for
the 1% and the man on the street.
The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by
Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. www.reuters.com...
Others put the bill closer to 6 trillion…
Why This Was Folly (for all)…
Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to
the fighting in Iraq, said Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Brown University.
Ultimately Iraq is producing less oil than had we simply lifted sanctions against Iraq. At the same time it’s a much harder country to invest in
because it’s in social chaos, and it’s producing less money because the infrastructure is in a mess.
And in Afghanistan’s case whilst it is clear the Taliban needed to be taken out, we could have ended the war within a year had we not insisted on
inserting a Western Style democracy, and instead settled with what the people of Afghanistan wanted which was a government coalition by the Northern
Nothing extra is being produced thanks to 6 trillion. Sure munitions have been made, but they never create money like a loan for a new factory does.
And what would have made even more money than tax cuts (in the medium term at least) would have been to spend a trillion on e.g. developing cheap
solar, another trillion on ocean floor mining, and to put the rest down as debt not borrowed.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason