kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 26, 2024 9:26:27 GMT -8
I read such pieces and ask myself, "What possible use is this study/information to the world?"
Yes, I understand the "scientists" who come up with this info make a living from such nonsense, but other than the telescope industry, computer manufacturers, universities and similar bodies, who gains from this? Is it even mildly important to the other 7-to-8 billion inhabitants of earth?
What possible gain can be so important, that they try to glean very questionable information about an event which will take place (maybe) billions of years (maybe) in the future, that huge resources are dedicated to such studies?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 30, 2024 7:46:11 GMT -8
I quite agree, Mr. Kung. This is the eschatology obsession of the secular/atheist crowd. They make fun of the supposed religious nut who stands at the corner with a sign "The end is near." And yet they themselves are obsessed with end times.
The psychology is the same either way. We are mortal. There is an end to our lives. This is just a different way of grappling with it, and one that I find insipid and stupid.
One commenter deals with these airheads with an appropriate dose of humor:
Another commenter (besides yourself) captures the vapidity of it:
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 24, 2024 10:30:38 GMT -8
This is the exact opposite of "Useless Science." The contraption was invented for specific applications which its users encounter everyday. It solves several problems at once and pays for itself over time. I am amazed and fascinated by this machine. The sophistication behind it is enormous. Laser weed killer |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 24, 2024 11:56:21 GMT -8
Pretty cool. I hadn't heard of that. Side note: Note how if you remove the word "sustainable," the meaning doesn't change. It's a completely useless buzzword meant for liberal idiots.
Laser weeding is better because: It doesn't use pesticides. It's less labor-intensive (and thus cheaper...at least probably for be mega-farms...not sure if the smaller farms can yet afford such a tool). It probably targets the weeds better than other techniques. And (I would say), it allows the organic material of the weed to go back into the soil.
The word "sustainable" adds nothing to any of this.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 24, 2024 13:06:16 GMT -8
Honestly, I did not even register "sustainable" while reading the piece. Sustainable is another one of those "marketing" terms which are dishonest at their core. It means nothing concrete but gives the reader the feeling that something must be good therefore if the reader supports it, the reader is, by some sort of osmosis, also good.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 24, 2024 15:41:45 GMT -8
In a similar vein:
This is a decent video my some German school teacher (Oliver Kim). It's heads-and-tails better than all the junk out there, even if lacking the usual pizzazz and noise. It's an honest fellow doing honest work.
I made a comment under the video which is about some fungi defying the unicellular theory. There are some cells in some fungi that have no nucleus or tons of nuclei. Etc. Some guy said:
"LUCA" may stand for "Last Universal Common Ancestor." And what I garnered from the comment is that scientists have quit thinking about the wonder of life, it's sheer (and often) intractability. We should remember that science was first known as "natural philosophy," and for good reason. It wasn't the dead, materialist view of the pinhead scientists of our day. That's a lot to pack in there, but that's my general gist, at least. I replied:
And showing how impossible it is to have a conversation among the rabble, a guy replies:
Whiff. Completely over his head. And I replied with what you might agree is a rather obvious point: Egoism is not a "concept." It's a human reality.
Putting a man on the moon is a human concept. Apollo 11 was a reality. If a human being is seriously denying the role of egotism in human affairs, I mean, how can you ever have a meaningful discussion? And this is what you get almost every time with the ill-formed rabble out there.
|
|
