cont'd ...

Even so, the organisation provides an influential
forum for world opinion, and while it doesn't
always prevent war, it surely helps make it less
likely.

Foxy, no. The UN was set-up by the winners of WWII, consequently they are the only permanent members of the UN Security Council. If it actually functioned as a proper UN, all countries would have equal footing, but they don't. The IMF has put underdeveloped countries into unfathomable debt to prevent them prospering, preventing them from competing for the same resources as the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. Those 5 members are also the 5 largest arms dealers and manufacturers on the planet.

The only reason you have the impression you do, is because you live in a Western country that has reaped the benefits of the loaded game. If you lived in an underdeveloped country, you would see it differently. We have actively denied those countries the one thing that drives ours...electricity. Unless they have resources for us to rape, in which case, we provide enough to create the infrastructure to get them, and supply arms to both government AND its enemies to create instability. Or, we just place a puppet government insitu...whichever is more expedient.

WE are the terrorists on this planet, while everyone else are actually freedom fighters attempting to free themselves from our imperialism.

Bazz, No. The last altruistic war America and us were involved in was WWII, and even then the American people had to be duped into agreement...in 1995, 50 years after the end of WWII, America released secret documents pertaining to that war, where they ADMITTED knowing of the presence and intent of the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor. What people forget, is that as a democracy, committing to a war on the other side of the planet is political suicide without public support. America was just recovering from the Great Depression, people started having jobs again, so why would they fight someone else's war? So they needed a "bad guy", and got one. They had invented radar, but only used it at night at a time that night-time bombing hadn't been developed, and turned off the radar at 7 am.

TBC

Cont'd

Consequently, the American public gave the government a 98% approval rating to go to war against Japan and the other Axis powers. Strangely, that's exactly the same approval rating received to go to war after 9/11. There were about 3,500 people killed at Pearl, and a few more killed on 9/11...that seems to be the magic number of deaths to get approval for war. The entire notion of two planes hitting two identical buildings in different spots of those buildings with different damage configurations, getting the same result of a perfect collapse, is at best moronic. The explosions you see is aircraft fuel igniting, so a few seconds later, the only thing left burning is office fixtures. So, you've got different damage configurations, a short fuel ignition and nothing but paper, desks and fixtures creating enough heat to melt steel struts for a perfectly equal heat distribution to melt steel equally in order for all the structure to give way simultaneously to create the perfect collapse. UTTER SWILL!

Look on YouTube for news footage on that day of the Pentagon...not a scrap of aircraft fuselage or wings. Just a round hole, 67 feet wide, that turned into a U-shaped hole after 30 minutes as the top facade fell. The wingspan of a 737 is about 160 feet. So why are there no wing imprints on the Pentagon wall, or wing wreckage in front of the building? Only one answer...there was no plane, it was a missile.

WMD's was proven to be a ruse, whereby 1 million Iraqis were murdered, and yet people still believe that murdering 3,500 people in their own country couldn't happen in order to kill 1 million others...how does that even remotely make sense?!?

Dick wrote regarding the survival of our species, "we already have all the tools necessary... intelligence and technology".

Nooooooooo.

(1)"Intelligence". You're using "mankind's" definition of what constitutes intelligence. Obviously that definition will be VERY sympathetic towards a "perceived" superiority of mankind. It follows therefore that all the intelligence measurements we invent will of necessity place mankind at the top of the tree. When the definition itself favours mankind so heavily, no other outcome is possible. Trust me Dick, our "perceived" intelligence superiority (which is not superior at all in factual reality) will be of no more assistance in the longevity of homo sapiens as a species, than the intelligence level of insects will be of assistance to their longevity. We are not as smart and superior as we "believe" we are ... we are merely the "current" dominant species. That will change eventually.

(2)"Technology". Nuclear bombs. Environment destroying and altering emissions. Guns. Swords. Advanced war planes designed to kill. Tanks. Warships of mass destruction. Rockets designed to kill. Drones of war. Computer technology for war, spying, planning destruction. Depletion of the Earth's resources. Trust me again Dick, technology will NOT ensure the survival of homo sapiens. It will only advance our destruction. Why? Because of our primitive, unaltered, survival instinct ... a survival instinct that is no different from, or more advanced than the animal world. This is why species like cockroaches will LONG out survive homo sapiens; cockroaches don't have the low intelligence ability to destroy their species or alter the natural planet, unlike homo sapiens.

Nhoj, you've cherry-picked the destructive technologies, rather than consider the positive ones. As soon as Man picked up a rock or piece of wood to use as a tool or weapon, it was a technology. We are not the only species that does this. But we ARE the only species that have had the intelligence to change the shape of that rock or piece of wood into a more efficient tool or weapon, and keep developing more technologies that have improved our chances of survival against the elements, and in so doing, become the dominant species and improved our longevity. Against other species, that's rather impressive. We have the technology for sustainability within the confines and limitation of resources on our planet. But it's about public demand and agreement with the political momentum to enforce it that is lacking.

We are intelligent, but on a collective level, we are not smart. I know intelligent people that are not smart, and I know others not that bright, but very smart. So unfortunately, what intelligence doesn't automatically include, is being smart. Nor does it command integrity, empathy and the host of other human virtues. We are a kaleidoscope of differing qualities, good and bad, that accompany that intelligence.

Technology can be used to make things last and don't need to be replaced for a dozen lifetimes. But we use "programmed redundancy" to make things fail for the purpose of increased consumerism, which is increased profits. We have technologies that can replace fossil fuels for energy, but there's too much money involved for both government and oil companies to use the alternates. The list is nearly endless.

Necessity is the mother of invention, but that also means that we don't do what we can do until we need to.

Dick, yes I have picked the destructive technologies. Why? Because they are precisely the tools mankind will use to alter the planet and destroy it's own self. This in itself is part of the way nature works. A nuclear bomb is no less a part of nature than a growing tree.

Homo sapiens is of such mediocre intelligence that we are the slaves of our animalistic survival instinct. We can't change that, and we use the destructive technology as a support tool for that survival instinct, and that's why homo sapiens won't survive. We simply don't, and will likely never, have the technology to alter the DNA on which that survival instinct relies. Altering our survival instinct, does not mean eliminating our survival instinct ... getting rid of the harmful and aggressive aspects of our survival instinct is mankind's only hope, and that is highly unlikely to ever happen. Technology, be it benign or destructive, won't save us.

Also, the intellectual and physical ability to make tools and technology is not a sign of superior intelligence. It's a sign of higher intelligence *AS IT'S DEFINED AND MEASURED BY HOMO SAPIENS ITSELF*. As I explained before, that "definition" is skewered towards ONLY the way that homo sapiens itself measures intelligence. It thus gives us the "belief" that "our" intelligence is higher than the intelligence within the collective animal world. "Our" intelligence is not the "only" type of intelligence.

Homo sapiens won't last much longer due to it's LOW intelligence (as NOT measured by mankind), and it's ability to manufacture destructive technology and most of all it's 100% dependence on it's destructive survival instinct. Those 3 things, working in tandem, will be our demise.

Our specific species has been here for roughly 100,000 years or so, and I very much doubt that in another 100,000 years we'll still be here, and not 100% extinct. Yep, in the grand scheme of things, 100,000 years is a very short time indeed.