On 03 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/3/2012 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So our existence at the current level is "bad' and we are to
revert back to some primitive non-tech version and be happy. OK.
Proceed there without me. I am not interested in telling you how
to live your life, just respect my basic human rights: Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. The climate alarmist are
busy inventing new reasons that I cannot have even these and you
seem to be OK with that! Why?
I am interested in advancing technology and understanding such
that, maybe, this constant panic and obsessive compulsive need to
control everything is mitigated. Why can't people just be happy
and live their lives w/o having to constantly invent "good
reasons" to get into everyone's business??? IMHO, all this climate
change stuff is just a reharsh of Malthusian thinking and the very
idea of criminalizing disenting opinions, well... What a wonderful
way to impose tyranny!
You might be right, I am not sure. Then, the fear sellers did not
need the climate change for imposing tyranny: food and drug works
already very well. (Cf Obama and the NDAA).
And they might be related, as Henry Ford said already in before
1930, "--why use petrol and steel for doing car, when we can build
them entirely using Hemp, which can be renewed each year?". The
possible climate change might be a consequence of the lies on
paper, steel, medication, oil, etc.
The deeper problem might be education, which get worst more or less
since Nixon, almost everywhere. People are not encouraged to think
by themselves. they still need leader, hero, etc. It is old social
mammal genes in play. We are apes with atomic bomb, which confuse p
-> q and q -> p, all the time.
As long as cannabis is illegal, you can be sure that politics is
biased in the favor of lying minorities. Corporatist club are NOT
person, contrary to what Romney said recently. We should implement
differently politics, so that we can separate it from special
interests. Not an easy task. May be we should vote for programs,
and politicians should be anonymous citizen doing some social
service for a fixed period. Something like that.
Bruno
Dear Bruno,
FYI: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602160845.htm
15 people is not a serious sample, and then, to make it illegal you
have to compare with the long-term effect of other activities
(alcohol, breathing air in cities, tobacco, chocolate, aspirin, etc.)
To get the stat meaningful you have to study large population of
cannabis smokers. And that has been done, and the effect are more
positive than negative, unless cannabis is consumed with alcohol or
tobacco.
Bruno
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.