Quote Originally Posted by sky View Post
Ok now this is interesting I'll have to locate this debate and watch it myself and end up doing some research because they both seem to have a point. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It was in writing and it was carried out in a particular journal. I don't remember which journal and I don't remember if it was a formal debate in the sense that a proposition was put down and then there was a format. I think it wasn't. Often what happens in journals is that a study is published and the community debates it. The public does not see any of this - it is for academics, researchers, students etc. I believe it came about because the USA was funding an official program searching for life elsewhere with radio etc. The debate reflected the disagreement among biologists (great ones like Ernst Mayr) and astrophysicists (great ones like Carl Sagan). I think the program was defunded around that time or not that long after. I recall it but not well because it was a long time ago. I don't think you are going to find it in full anywhere without access to the kind of journals that I have access to. I will have another look. It was a bit like the optimist (Sagan) versus the pessimist (Mayr). Or if you are very cynical, the delusional versus the realist lol. You can't escape Mayrs' logic here. One species out of 50 billion that all evidence points to is not going to survive much longer. Mayr remarks were taken to be a bit of a comment on society itself, which was what I was hinting at. I am sorry they are stupid. Don't worry about the environment because God promised Noah? Really? Don't worry about a housing crisis because of efficient markets? Really? That is the fucking most stupid thing ever. The point Chomsky made was that they actually believed it. What am I talking about? Well we are in the 6th mass extinction of species and it is caused by man's spread across the world, which has only occurred in recent times. The last mass extinction wiped out the dinosaurs and is accepted to have been caused by an asteroid hitting the planet. I think it wiped out anything of any size. Exactly what is happening now, except we are causing it. Both Sagan and Mayr agreed on all of that. And they agreed that nuclear weapons as did Russell and Einstein Russell-Einstein Manifesto | Atomic Heritage Foundation That leaves climate change. Once again Sagan and Mayr agreed. Those that think otherwise are easy to spot. They are the lawyers and businessman that populate Parliaments and so-called think tanks. Interestingly, it is in a courtroom now. The only priority of a business is the maximisation of profit. One of the best ways to do that is to externalise costs like pollution. If they don't have to pay for it and it does not appear in their balance sheet or their profit and loss statements that is terrific! Laughing all the way to the bank! I find it amusing that people trained in law are going to determine something that is so far beyond their domain they do not even realise they lack the expertise. In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial So why does the public spew out climate denial shit? That is easy to explain one on one and not so easy in writing. There are several ways to respond to information that is presented that you do not agree with. 1. attack the person making the statement 2. engage the debate by providing citations to refute the argument 3. be willing to keep an open mind and take a proper look If you choose number 1, you lose by default. After all if I am wrong you should be able to use number 2. I will change my mind if someone can show me how I am wrong.