Watching Hot Planet... arent adding up
(This is also to the post prior to the one I am quoting)
Firstly, I feel that an apology is in order. My last post seemed unduly aggressive, and while it could have been justified it certainly wasn't necessary. So I apologise for that.
So you admit you did remark about not caring. That's why I felt you didn't care.
'Knowledge hasn't saved us here'? Knowledge hasn't had the chance to save us. Knowledge has driven humanity throughout its history, from early tool use to modern computing. Knowledge has been and still is critical to the success of this species.
'But in doing so, finding us not a virus but more, yet denying other things as well, means the same, does it not?' I honestly have no idea about what this means. Explain?
Faith in knowledge and faith in religion are slightly similar but markedly different. Faith in knowledge is a 'faith' in facts, the other is faith in perceived fact. Just because knowledge fluctuates doesn't reduce it into a theist principle, in fact this constant change marks it apart most religions, whom have ideologies based upon ancient scripts that have remained unchanged for thousands of years. Just because something changes doesn't make it unreal, The night-sky changes, does that make the stars false? Tectonics plates mean that, over time, the Earth beneath our feet changes, does that make it unreal?
Perhaps knowledge could be considered a cocoon. However, it is a cocoon that we are constantly pushing outwards, enlarging it with every new discovery. A religious cocoon remains small in comparison. Some grow, some can embrace aspects of knowledge that aren't inhibited by a belief system, but it will still mean that a religious cocoon will be smaller than the cocoon of knowledge. But many people choose to remain in a cocoon that is small, and wrapped around a religion, and it remains a shame that some people do put themselves in a situation like that. There are of course non-theist cocoons people wrap themselves in, such as with HIV, when parents refuse to give treatment to their child whom contracts the disease, resulting in the death of the child.
The poor have always suffered, they suffered when they were colonised, they suffered when they were enslaved, and they still suffer today. Food, water, shelter and warmth (clothing) are important, in fact they are the considered the basic needs of every human being. Yet, many millions do not have all of these, and has this picked up since globalisation? Probably not. I have suggested ways to help poorer nations, although they do rely upon there leaders, such as schemes to stop deforestation, or fossil fuel use. The way poorer nations will be effected by this means that acute interest needs to be paid into helping them.
It's odd, I was watching a program on viruses last night, and I could interchange 'virus' and 'humans' and the show still made sense. It's not a point rather an observation. Man continues to be a virus, he continues to scar the landscape in the manner of a virus scarring the body. Humans need this planet to survive, as a virus needs its host. Humanity can be evil, but there are, as you say, moments of goodness out there. Unfortunately most good people never make it to any decision making positions, hence why it took women around the world so long to get the vote, and black people so long in the USA (among others but the US is the most highlighted case of oppression against blacks).
What you are referencing is not communism and shouldn't be referred to as such. You can call it Leninism or Stalinism, but never communism. I don't call a cat a dog because they both have four legs, a tail and teeth, the same is true with ideologies. Leninism isn't communism, because it broke fundamental rules regarding oppression and equal-pay.
Have the lands risen or the sample been sunk? It's a tough call, because coastal erosion means land is being washed away, while this land is displaced elsewhere, but most sedimentary rocks are from soil compacted over time, so it's possible that this layer was pushed downwards. Hurricanes hit New York about every 150 years? I've statements to this effect, but why would they then hit fifteen times more often in a warmer world? Let me explain. Tropical cyclones are produced by the oceans which need to above at a certain temperature to produce tropical cyclones, and if the world is warmer then the area of ocean at this temperature increases. If there is more ocean at the right temperature then the hurricane can spend a long time forming, growing in intensity, and numbers produced. Atlantic hurricanes have been getting more numerous since 1995, but the worldwide numbers have remained steady. However, it is felt that the intensity and duration of tropical cyclones has increased throughout their global range. If the duration has increased this means that the likelihood of a hurricane reaching New York increases, and fifteen times doesn't seem an unreasonable figure for this increase. If they had said every year, you could claim it's alarmist, but an every decade event is recoverable. So the facts of the increased chance of a New York hurricane do 'add up'. Another factor is that a sea-level rise from a warmer world means that the defences of New York will be stretched more, so the storm surge would have more of an impact on New York, but this in itself won't effect the odds of a strike.
[EDIT: Also note their use of the word 'could' in the programme. That's not the same as definately.]