Eternal Oblivion

[juvenissun]

I think we can put photo-degrading one time use plastics near the top of the list. It enters the food chain at all levels weakening, each link.

That is new to me. I heard bio-degradable plastics. The products are (?) water and CO2. Well, anything is possible now. And all food are poisonous.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

That is new to me. I heard bio-degradable plastics. The products are (?) water and CO2. Well, anything is possible now. And all food are poisonous.

The difference between Degradable, Biodegradable, and Compostable | Green Plastics

There are three terms that get thrown around a lot when people talk about plastics, so it is worth spending a moment to clear up how they are related to one another, and how they are different.

Degradable Plastic. The word “degradable” just means that something breaks down. Technically, all plastic is degradable plastic. You can break it with a hammer. You can grind it into a fine powder. This all counts as “breaking down” the plastic, and therefore (technically) “degrading” the plastic.

This creates a little bit of confusion, because some plastics will add chemicals that will make the plastic break down faster under certain conditions. For example, you can add an additive to normal, petroleum-based plastic that will make it become brittle and crumble in sunlight: this is referred to as making “photodegradable” plastic. Other additives can be put into plastic that will make plastic break down by oxidation: this is referred to as making “oxo-degradable plastic.”

These methods will make the bulk of the plastic appear to disappear; however, the small pieces (or even find “sand”) that is produced by this effect is still small pieces of plastic. Nothing has changed. Over a matter of years, it is possible for the pieces to become small enough to be assimilated by microorganisms, but there is still a lot of research that needs to be done to verify how long this might take. In the mean time, they are just very small pieces of plastic.

So be cautious when you see a plastic product that advertises that it is “degradable” but not “biodegradable” or “compostable,” because this is nothing special. The plastic material does not “return to the earth” in any real way. It just gets really, really small. (You can read more about why this is different from biodegradation in our article: Degrading Dialogue (Achilles and the Tortoise).)

 

[juvenissun]

The difference between Degradable, Biodegradable, and Compostable | Green Plastics

There are three terms that get thrown around a lot when people talk about plastics, so it is worth spending a moment to clear up how they are related to one another, and how they are different.

Degradable Plastic. The word “degradable” just means that something breaks down. Technically, all plastic is degradable plastic. You can break it with a hammer. You can grind it into a fine powder. This all counts as “breaking down” the plastic, and therefore (technically) “degrading” the plastic.

This creates a little bit of confusion, because some plastics will add chemicals that will make the plastic break down faster under certain conditions. For example, you can add an additive to normal, petroleum-based plastic that will make it become brittle and crumble in sunlight: this is referred to as making “photodegradable” plastic. Other additives can be put into plastic that will make plastic break down by oxidation: this is referred to as making “oxo-degradable plastic.”

These methods will make the bulk of the plastic appear to disappear; however, the small pieces (or even find “sand”) that is produced by this effect is still small pieces of plastic. Nothing has changed. Over a matter of years, it is possible for the pieces to become small enough to be assimilated by microorganisms, but there is still a lot of research that needs to be done to verify how long this might take. In the mean time, they are just very small pieces of plastic.

So be cautious when you see a plastic product that advertises that it is “degradable” but not “biodegradable” or “compostable,” because this is nothing special. The plastic material does not “return to the earth” in any real way. It just gets really, really small. (You can read more about why this is different from biodegradation in our article: Degrading Dialogue (Achilles and the Tortoise).)

Thanks. For geologists, This is another trivial example on the difference between "mechanical weathering" and "chemical weathering".

I guess we do not have a good and practical way to dispose plastic material. Strange material indeed. It presents no problem when it was "dispersed" in petroleum. Then why is it becoming a problem when extracted from petroleum?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Thanks. For geologists, This is another trivial example on the difference between "mechanical weathering" and "chemical weathering".

I guess we do not have a good and practical way to dispose plastic material. Strange material indeed. It presents no problem when it was "dispersed" in petroleum. Then why is it becoming a problem when extracted from petroleum?

Ask the midway island albatross.

 

[jayem]

Compare to crime rate 200 years ago?

You don't think think there was much crime in 19th century America? If you think the Chicago southside is bad today, read The Gangs of New York, by reporter Herbert Asbury--the 1928 book on which the movie was loosely based. Parts of Manhattan in the early 1800s were filled with saloons, gambling dens, and brothels. Much of which was controlled by rival gangs--usually of immigrants--who's level of violence and mayhem would make today's inner city gangs look like choirboys. Mutilated bodies floating in the East River was a common sight. Not to mention the burglars, petty thieves, and pickpockets, who were most everywhere. And the police were about as corrupt as the criminals. It wasn't just NYC, either. There were high levels of crime in Boston, Philly, Baltimore, New Orleans, and most all of the older US cities.

 

[juvenissun]

You don't think think there was much crime in 19th century America? If you think the Chicago southside is bad today, read The Gangs of New York, by reporter Herbert Asbury--the 1928 book on which the movie was loosely based. Parts of Manhattan in the early 1800s were filled with saloons, gambling dens, and brothels. Much of which was controlled by rival gangs--usually of immigrants--who's level of violence and mayhem would make today's inner city gangs look like choirboys. Mutilated bodies floating in the East River was a common sight. Not to mention the burglars, petty thieves, and pickpockets, who were most everywhere. And the police were about as corrupt as the criminals. It wasn't just NYC, either. There were high levels of crime in Boston, Philly, Baltimore, New Orleans, and most all of the older US cities.

You can study all the history in details if you like to. But I don't have to do that to understand the change of crime rate since the dawn of human race. It would approximately be the same at all the time. This is the human nature and it would hardly affected by any sort of civilization.

The crime rate will be about the same in the future. And I do not appreciate any of the crime rate report. They are all short term fluctuations.

 

[juvenissun]

Ask the midway island albatross.

Amazingly bad. Very sad.
Stupid birds. Do they have to eat those junks?
Would that achieve the goal of population control?

 

[jayem]

You can study all the history in details if you like to. But I don't have to do that to understand the change of crime rate since the dawn of human race. It would approximately be the same at all the time. This is the human nature and it would hardly affected by any sort of civilization.

So I guess believing in God, or accepting Jesus doesn't affect it much either. As Bertrand Russell said, if Christianity is supposed to make men moral, I haven't noticed it.

 

[juvenissun]

So I guess believing in God, or accepting Jesus doesn't affect it much either. As Bertrand Russell said, if Christianity is supposed to make men moral, I haven't noticed it.

Would Islam work better? I certainly think so.

Most noticeable crime is committed by 1% of the population. It is easy to have that 1% being atheists.

 

[Gene2memE]

You can study all the history in details if you like to. But I don't have to do that to understand the change of crime rate since the dawn of human race. It would approximately be the same at all the time. This is the human nature and it would hardly affected by any sort of civilization.

The crime rate will be about the same in the future. And I do not appreciate any of the crime rate report. They are all short term fluctuations.

Wrong.

Immensely so.

Demonstrably so.

You can look at the rates of violence across the western world over the past 200 years, or even in just since the end of WW2, and see a persistent and sustained decline.

Then you can compared developed, industrialised societies to primitive societies (hunter-gathers, subsistence agricultural types, Western or Eastern) and you can see an even greater decline.

Steven Pinker's The Better Angles of Our Nature is dedicated to exactly this hypothesis.

You're an order of magnitude less likely to be a victim of violence or to die as a result of violence than you were just four or five generations ago. If you're older than about 35, then you're about three quarters less likely to be a victim of violence or to die as a result of violence than your parents were, and less than a 1/10th as likely to die in a war.

Compared to 1000 or 2000 years ago people live lives that are longer and healthier for the duration of their life. We are less likely to be subject to violence, less likely to be subject to crime. We travel more, see more, learn more and have generally higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than our antecedents did.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Most noticeable crime is committed by 1% of the population. It is easy to have that 1% being atheists.

 

[juvenissun]

Wrong.

Immensely so.

Demonstrably so.

You can look at the rates of violence across the western world over the past 200 years, or even in just since the end of WW2, and see a persistent and sustained decline.

Then you can compared developed, industrialised societies to primitive societies (hunter-gathers, subsistence agricultural types, Western or Eastern) and you can see an even greater decline.

Steven Pinker's The Better Angles of Our Nature is dedicated to exactly this hypothesis.

You're an order of magnitude less likely to be a victim of violence or to die as a result of violence than you were just four or five generations ago. If you're older than about 35, then you're about three quarters less likely to be a victim of violence or to die as a result of violence than your parents were, and less than a 1/10th as likely to die in a war.

Compared to 1000 or 2000 years ago people live lives that are longer and healthier for the duration of their life. We are less likely to be subject to violence, less likely to be subject to crime. We travel more, see more, learn more and have generally higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than our antecedents did.

According to statistics you made up, you should get the Nobel Peace prize.

Show me the crime rate anywhere 200 years ago.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Most noticeable crime is committed by 1% of the population. It is easy to have that 1% being atheists.

Easier for people who aren't worried about truth.

 

[Espy]

I've returned but had read every post here.

I have several problems with both sides of the equation. The whole "Afterlife Vs Eternal Oblivion" debacle.

My problem with an eternal oblivion is that, to me, if that is our fate then it is as if nothing around us today even exists because once we're gone for all eternity then it's as if nothing ever existed at all. In our world, through the eyes of our essence that is what it would be.

There must be something that determines why we're even controlling the body that we're controlling. For example I could just as easily be crawling around in someone elses skin and the same for everyone else. The fact that we're conscious to a specific body has to scream to you that there is something within us that is not "physical" if you will or part of the "natural world".

 

[Michael]

This feeling, thought, is incredibly uncomforting.

I remember acknowledging this possibility at around the age of 16 when I really began to challenge what the Universe was really all about and it bothered me for a little while but I was able to find distractions and that's all that keeps me unbothered about it but recently throughout the day I'd be subconsciously thinking about it.

I've taken quite a liking to science for science is the study of the physical world. The how, what, where, and when, and in "some" cases why. Its mission is to discover the complete explanation to the deepest mysteries of the Universe and how it all works, with indepth and well-substantiated explanations.

And biologically? Death is the termination of all biological functions which includes our brain and therein lies the source of our consciousness.

I find myself growing closer and closer to not living my every day life as I have been doing. At work I have been nothing short of top notch. One of the best and most knowledgeable workers and I'm still continuing this way but I'm not quite sure how much longer I'll be able to. I find it as if it has no meaning to me anymore. My awards, accomplishments. If eternal nothingness is what awaits us then nothing we do here truly matters for it will be as if we never existed. It will be as if nothing ever existed to begin with.

I cannot live my life under this belief much less the way that I have been living it but there seems no other way around it. It only seems morally illogical and "morals" very well could just be a man made concept, not an actual thing that "comes from the heart." I understand that this is incredibly dehumanizing and I for one feel very much so, dehumanized.

All beliefs are welcome.

Meh. You'll get over it once you get past the fear and depression.

I did about a 9 year stint as a self professed "atheist". Eventually I got used to the concept of complete mortality, and yet you can still leave your "mark" on this physical world either way.

Morality is to some degree a construct of the human mind. What is considered to be "moral" to some folks isn't necessarily "moral" to everyone. I don't for instance believe that it would be "moral" for God to create a living being only to torment it for the whole of eternity for the "sins" of a single lifetime. Others seem to feel quite differently.

The "morality" that Jesus describes is based upon unconditional love, including loving even our enemies.

There are basically two empirical physics points that I'd make related to Orch-OR theory, and near death experiences, both of which suggest that from the standpoint of "pure empirical physics", you can't simply *assume* that awareness/consciousness ends at the termination of electrical impulses in the brain.

By the way, sorry I missed your thread earlier.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There must be something that determines why we're even controlling the body that we're controlling. For example I could just as easily be crawling around in someone elses skin and the same for everyone else. The fact that we're conscious to a specific body has to scream to you that there is something within us that is not "physical" if you will or part of the "natural world".

I can't be everybody, so I must be somebody. That somebody is me. It's not that mysterious. It doesn't require any magical whoopwhoop.

 

[Espy]

I can't be everybody, so I must be somebody. That somebody is me. It's not that mysterious. It doesn't require any magical whoopwhoop.

I don't believe in making sense of something by saying that it was just some random draw out of a top hat.

 

[Chesterton]

I hear scientists have successfully taught a gorilla that it will die someday. Researchers say Kuku is now able to experience the crippling fear of impending death previously only accessible to humans. He has started drinking heavily. Cheer up! Science will show us the way!

 

[Espy]

I hear scientists have successfully taught a gorilla that it will die someday. Researchers say Kuku is now able to experience the crippling fear of impending death previously only accessible to humans. He has started drinking heavily. Cheer up! Science will show us the way!

Sounds to me like science is incredibly ballsy. Challenging every aspect of life to find the one and only truth instead of hoping for something that sounds pretty but likely isn't so. I don't care to live a happy life if it means to live a lie.

 

[Michael]

Sounds to me like science is incredibly ballsy. Challenging every aspect of life to find the one and only truth instead of hoping for something that sounds pretty but likely isn't so. I don't care to live a happy life if it means to live a lie.

Define "likely" with respect to physics. Even if awareness/consciousness is a function of electrical activity, there's no guarantee it's "lost" when someone dies according to Orch-OR theory. Even Carl Jung had a near death experience and he believed quite emphatically that it was a "real" event which imparted knowledge to him during the experience.