3 ms·
The world wouldn't change. The people might change their behaviors. It's a strange perspective that thinks the sociological sphere is the "world".
by NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
The world wouldn't change. The people might change their behaviors. It's a strange perspective that thinks the sociological sphere is the "world".
- SerpentJoe 12y agoWhat is the world?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y agoIn archaic usages, it's the universe itself. In modern usage, the planet as a whole.
- meepmorp 12y ago> In modern usage, the planet as a whole. In common usage, when a person refers to the world changing, they're referring to the human world changing.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y agoIn common usage, Austria is the place where kangaroos live. "Common usage" is such a low standard some chimpanzees manage to measure up. I don't believe it to be sufficient for intelligent discussion.
- meepmorp 12y agoYeah, there's a difference between factual errors and implicit scope of reference in commonly used phrases. Don't be a jackass.
- ctdonath 12y agoIt's hard to have a conversation when common terms are deliberately misconstrued. Obviously & colloquially, when someone says "how would the world change if humans were given information X" we're discussing social human behavior, not (say) natural geologic change.
- rbrogan 12y agoThat is not obvious (no offense). When I think of "the world", I also think about things beyond "social human behavior". For instance, you could ask how contact with alien life could affect how we use this planet Earth (e.g. usage of natural resources, pollution, etc.). Conceivably, it could also change how we think about (non-human) life on this planet. One can talk about "the world" and talk about humans without necessarily being anthropocentric.