John Hyperspace
UnKnown ReMember
I have already given you a list of some of the major diseases over which we now have control (I note you have changed your language from ONE "bullet" to 'several' ....... we seem to be making headway....). To that list you could add others such as tuberculosis, rabies, rinderpest, tetanus, influenza.
These are the MAJOR infectious disease killers from our past. You might describe it as removing just 'several' bullets from the 'gun', but such a statement is disingenuous. Not all 'bullets' are equal. For example, the control of influenza, measles and smallpox ALONE accounts for the removal of the great bulk of threat of death by infectious disease.
One of the problems facing mankind is that they are "subject to contracting crippling/deadly disease"; all of your speaking here does not in any way, shape or form meaningfully change the fact that mankind is still "subject to contracting crippling/deadly diseases". This is a fact of the matter. You are free to reject the facts, but that simply means your ideology is based on faith in your own "preaching"
What you are proposing is akin to a man trying to pump water from a continually refilling basement, pumping a gallon out for every two that come in, holding his head up high and stating "My elimination of each gallon is meaningful in the face of my situation" while I simply stand by shaking my head and watching the water rising toward your upheld chin.
Yes.
Then I can only respond, I've not seen so great a faith in all of religion.
I have just celebrated my 88th birthday during this past week. A few centuries ago, I would have been most unlikely to make such a boast. The probabilities are such that I would have been dead for at least 20 years. (I know this as a result of a 'scientific examination' of the statistics, by the way....).
I can't say I'm glad that you think that the fact that you've just turned 88 somehow demonstrates that prolonged life is somehow an alleviation of death, or any of the other problems mankind truly faces. But I can say that your statement is entirely meaningless, and does not in any way, shape or form demonstrate that "systematic investigation of the natural world" has in any way meaningfully contributed to the statement "the world is LESS torn by division, strife, violence". Perhaps you could in some way explain how "systematic investigation of the natural world" has meaningfully contributed to any of these? As opposed to how, diplomacy, ethical philosophy, and emotional appeal may have done so?
Or, do you believe I will just accept your words like a little old lady accepts the words of her pulpit preacher, without question? You seem to be a preacher preaching a religion, and are becoming frustrated that I will not accept your words on appeals to emotion alone.
Upvote
0