Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Übergeek 바둑이: We also need to stimulate companies and universities thaht do research into ways to reduce the amount of gases we emit. That means that the goverment has to take our hard-earned tax dollars and put them to work properly. That will always be a difficult thing, because politicians are influenced by special interests, and taxpayers might be skeptical of how the money is being spent.
**
Be it the environment, be it health, I do not see the science as we know it today offering the anwers that would bring us forward. To get consensual on the climate problem like the science is describing it, we would have to move to a complete 'scientification' of the whole world population, science fiction of it's worst. Different cultures have different answers, and people tend to put faith over science, even more the situation gets dramatic. People see them self confirmed in doupting in scientifical explanations, because science fails to solve problems above technical aspects. Our mainstream medicine is tied to big companies who blind government lot lots of tax revenues. It's taking cash out of our pockets, this for a medicine that hasn't much to do with health. Lots of people don't seem to understand that health is something in between the visit to the doctor. They feel not good about something, go to a doc, get a chill pill, but don't get told to invisage a change of lifestile, reaching life quality. We wouldn't be in need of that much pharmaceutica if we would take the lessons from our cultures and religions serious. Then, we don't deny that coffein, nicotine, alcohol has an effect on us. It is the case for everything, all foods, nonfoods, things we don't know anymore that they are fine for us. We all seem to know this, but continue to let the synthetic monster science be decisive in what's good or wrong. Not every aspect of science is monstreus, but some definitly are. Health science is in large parts. Our science denies that an organism is more than a single body. It's wrong, even cruel. I don't call myself religious but I'm true in being thankful toward God. It is a logical consequence following the culture I grew up in. This culture, let me generalise it, west of Jerusalem, knows what buddhists seem to call rebirth (as in reincarnation). So why should I care about getting older at the point when it tells me, face death now. I can take it as a new chance, yay, new start. All this, the science denies it, is fighting it, mainly for the strange idea of some few to live in repulsive abundance. It's the same with the climate. Arts examles of Hollywoodstars who don't get it are typical for that. This toilet paper example. In America you seem to be dwelt to 5-ply fluffy papers, while most of the world is doing the toilet business with the more hygienic water and hand method. How do you want to reach scientifical consensus, when the differences of lifestile are so blatant? It isn't a new thing that cultures learn from each other, without fighting. What needs to get fighted is repulsive abundance.
(esconder) Farto de seguir 2 ou 3 cliques para chegar sempre à mesma página? Os membros com inscrição paga podem adicionar páginas ao seu Menu de Contexto. (pauloaguia) (mostrar todas as dicas)