4 ms·

You're probably going to die from cancer or heart disease. Even if you just look at environmental factors, we're more likely to die either from the bee populat

You're probably going to die from cancer or heart disease. Even if you just look at environmental factors, we're more likely to die either from the bee population dying due to pesticides, or because of the massive increase in routine use of antibiotics in meat production. Neither of which really get much media attention, maybe because they're both issues caused by science, and people like cheap food. But at the end of the day we're going to die from overcrowding . The population has doubled in the last 30 years. (Hence why science has to make horrible dangerous food to feed them all). Whether your fellow man believes in global warming is pretty irrelevant, and whether he believes in evolution is even less relevant to anything that matters. You're certainly not going to die from global warming! Your comment is the sort of "scientific fundamentalism" I was talking about.

eanzenberg 12y ago
First world countries are not overcrowded. Scientific progress (increase food production, improved medicine and care) is the reason you will probably live 30 years longer than if you were born 2 centuries ago.
- reasonish 12y ago
  Those stats are faulty - the infant mortality rate 2 centuries ago was massive, which dragged the life expectancy down massively. Also, I don't think extending our life past 80 or so is a good idea. Quality of life is far more important than quantity. Define "overcrowded"... First world countries are more crowded than they were 30 years ago, and (IMHO) the quality of life has gone down. And as for your "increase food production"... We're force feeding chickens to be morbidly obese, pumping them full of anti-biotics so they don't get ill from living in squalid conditions. We're killing off the bee population with pesticides everywhere. These things are not good, and will only get worse as there are more people to feed.
  - eanzenberg 12y ago
    Sure it is.. if me at 40 is like today's 30, and me at 80 is like today's 50, then keep pushing the envelope.
    - reasonish 12y ago
      The way people live today is extremely unhealthy. Cooped up in cities like factory farms, eating mass produced "food" and becoming morbidly obese. The best way to improve your quality of life is not to look to science (Unless you're actually ill), it's to look to nature.
      - eanzenberg 12y ago
        Nah. People living in cities are healthier and less obese than their counterparts living in the suburbs, rural areas, and small towns. The best way to improve your life is to look to science. Please stop spreading ignorance around. You're actively working to hold society's progress back.
        reasonish 12y ago
        Well, lets agree to disagree :) Have a fun life in the human factory farm.
      - eivarv 12y ago
        Some might argue that one should avoid appeals to nature [0] (not to mention sweeping generalizations), and rather look to what can be demonstrated to be effective. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
  - lewisl9029 12y ago
    And what, exactly, do you attribute the drop in infant mortality rates to, if not scientific/technological progress?
    - reasonish 12y ago
      > you will probably live 30 years longer than if you were born 2 centuries ago. Is what the OP said, and it's false. I will not. The average may be 30 years longer, but that's a fairly meaningless statistic.
      - lewisl9029 12y ago
        It seems quite correct to me. The fact that you were born today means that you will be shielded, either fully or partially, from many of the factors that made the average lifespan 30 years shorter 2 centuries ago, infant mortality included. The lack of these factors would then lead to you "probably" having a 30 year longer lifespan ("probably" in the statistical sense). You could argue that a more robust statistic like a median would provide a better representation of the expected lifespan less drastically affected by outliers, but calling the 30 year difference in average lifespan "meaningless" is disingenuous at best and could represent a fundamental denial of basic empirical evidence at worst (the latter of which seems more likely to me judging from some of your other replies so far on this subject).
snowwrestler 12y ago
> because of the massive increase in routine use of antibiotics in meat production Which is dangerous because it leads bacteria to evolve away from the antibiotics, becoming harder to stop in humans. Antibiotic resistance is one of the issues hurt by the poor understanding of evolution. Anyway, the general problem is that people don't have an understanding of science in general necessary to understand issues on which the government must make public policy. It's like trying to drive a car somewhere without knowing how to read street signs or a map.

eanzenberg 12y ago

First world countries are not overcrowded. Scientific progress (increase food production, improved medicine and care) is the reason you will probably live 30 years longer than if you were born 2 centuries ago.

reasonish 12y ago
Those stats are faulty - the infant mortality rate 2 centuries ago was massive, which dragged the life expectancy down massively. Also, I don't think extending our life past 80 or so is a good idea. Quality of life is far more important than quantity. Define "overcrowded"... First world countries are more crowded than they were 30 years ago, and (IMHO) the quality of life has gone down. And as for your "increase food production"... We're force feeding chickens to be morbidly obese, pumping them full of anti-biotics so they don't get ill from living in squalid conditions. We're killing off the bee population with pesticides everywhere. These things are not good, and will only get worse as there are more people to feed.
- eanzenberg 12y ago
  Sure it is.. if me at 40 is like today's 30, and me at 80 is like today's 50, then keep pushing the envelope.
  - reasonish 12y ago
    The way people live today is extremely unhealthy. Cooped up in cities like factory farms, eating mass produced "food" and becoming morbidly obese. The best way to improve your quality of life is not to look to science (Unless you're actually ill), it's to look to nature.
    - eanzenberg 12y ago
      Nah. People living in cities are healthier and less obese than their counterparts living in the suburbs, rural areas, and small towns. The best way to improve your life is to look to science. Please stop spreading ignorance around. You're actively working to hold society's progress back.
      - reasonish 12y ago
        Well, lets agree to disagree :) Have a fun life in the human factory farm.
    - eivarv 12y ago
      Some might argue that one should avoid appeals to nature [0] (not to mention sweeping generalizations), and rather look to what can be demonstrated to be effective. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
- lewisl9029 12y ago
  And what, exactly, do you attribute the drop in infant mortality rates to, if not scientific/technological progress?
  - reasonish 12y ago
    > you will probably live 30 years longer than if you were born 2 centuries ago. Is what the OP said, and it's false. I will not. The average may be 30 years longer, but that's a fairly meaningless statistic.
    - lewisl9029 12y ago
      It seems quite correct to me. The fact that you were born today means that you will be shielded, either fully or partially, from many of the factors that made the average lifespan 30 years shorter 2 centuries ago, infant mortality included. The lack of these factors would then lead to you "probably" having a 30 year longer lifespan ("probably" in the statistical sense). You could argue that a more robust statistic like a median would provide a better representation of the expected lifespan less drastically affected by outliers, but calling the 30 year difference in average lifespan "meaningless" is disingenuous at best and could represent a fundamental denial of basic empirical evidence at worst (the latter of which seems more likely to me judging from some of your other replies so far on this subject).

snowwrestler 12y ago

> because of the massive increase in routine use of antibiotics in meat production Which is dangerous because it leads bacteria to evolve away from the antibiotics, becoming harder to stop in humans. Antibiotic resistance is one of the issues hurt by the poor understanding of evolution. Anyway, the general problem is that people don't have an understanding of science in general necessary to understand issues on which the government must make public policy. It's like trying to drive a car somewhere without knowing how to read street signs or a map.