Er, is it just me or are there a few to many threads about Mundane stuff, rather than Pagan Stuff? Is everyone so fed up with potential bickering sessions or differing points of views they are just playing it safe?

So how about this topic?....

Will Religions survive another Millenium? or just be swallowed up by the new God or Goddess of Shopping, or something?

Swings and roundabouts my dear. Sometimes theres a glut of one or tother. however.. back to the question.

Survive to the next millenium.... Hmmmm. Probably. I mean its a belief thing isnt it. I think there will be far less people believing in things like gods, but yeah, I do think religion will still be about.

**edited to say**

People seem to need to believe, appeal to a higher power when all else fails you. Human nature.

Aye I believe it will, faith like hope tends to survive to continue on no matter what its faced with.

Until ALL living people stop ALL religious beliefs and ALL superstitions, the self-serving PowersThatBe of ORGANIZED religions and ASSOCIATED superstitions will insure that their particular religion/sect/cult/path WILL survive by brainwashing the young and the gullible. AND by taking their money in exchange for minimum LABOR on the part of the individual PTB!!!

Agreeing with Xalle, it may be similar to a pendulum swing over time. In the year 3000, the followers of a zillion pagan paths may constitute a majority over the memberships of all organized religions. IF that were to happen, I would consider it a major improvement over the domination of organized religions. But who's to guess whether the PTB of pagan paths wouldn't THEN turn into the prestige/power-hungry leaders of current organized religions???

While the organized religions go exponential in schisms over power/belief conflicts, pagans MIGHT coalesce into the future power equivalent to the Vatican, etc. Would THAT outcome in 3000 CE be an improvement???

CS, on a good day I can be reasonably accurate on predicting the day after tomorrow. But, yea, organized religions may be around in the next milennium, but the majority of them may be current or later "pagan paths". Info re the media may be the key to the balance shift, as the various beliefs are disproven via scientific and cultural researches/investigations.

But today's PTBs are expert in surviving at the expense of others, and so, too, will be the PTBs of tomorrow. Whether organized, associated, or independent, all belief/faith-based PTBs depend upon the wise insight of P. T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute."

I think religions will increase markedly. People will get (are getting/have got) so fed up with science and technology and progress ( ) they'll end up taking refuge in anything vague, especially religion, spritualism, ghosts, ufos etc.. I think S&T will eventually implode through apathy and a good job too, wish i could live to see it.

I think the some of the organised religions of today will disappear in the next millennium - certain sects of Christianity will not survive, I don't think. But there will always be belief systems but who can say what they will be in the next few centuries.

I think as science discovers more about the universe and the origins of things some belief systems will become even harder to follow in the face of increasing evidence. Either that or those belief systems will have to evolve.

I think what will be fascinating would be what happens if we find definite proof of intelligent life on another planet. That will lead to a major revision of many religious creation stories. Would the Creator god then be seen as only the creator of our solar system and therefore not omnipotent?

I have heard, although how true it is I don't know, that the Vatican has plans to try and convert any alien who makes contact with us - one presumes that they are talking about aliens that actually land here as opposed to receiving a radio signal. So presumably the Vatican is convinced that any aliens who arrive are either atheists or pagans of some description. Which strikes me as being a bit presumptious.

This I agree with. Arthur C Clarke had a bit of a bee in his bonnet regarding this, as did Carl Sagan (only less so as he wasn't convinced re the existence of ET life). Clarke writes in 'the Deep Range' specifically about how we will be treated by ET life when the ETs have seen how we live.

Basically religion is a throwback to the superstition of the bogeyman and the sabretoothed tiger. It is a refined method of saying 'do what everyone else does and you won't get noticed. If you don't get noticed, you don't get eaten'. Standing out from the crowd, especially in the 13th/14th century, was dangerous. Also, the majority of people were serfs, and therefore were expected to believe what their owners believed. Nowadays I hope that this kind of thing is frowned upon (although it seems in some countries it is not), so we have a choice. To regress to unquestioning faith, or to evolve into questioning beings. So when people say 'S&T will explode in apathy' I wonder what they have been smoking.

1. Technology has got us to this point here, now, typing on our PCs, pontificating about the 'eeeevil 21st century'. Complaining about technology on an online forum is like complaining about guns while shooting one.

2. Science is fact. we know that rainbows aren't the bridges of the gods. We know that thunder isn't Zeus gearing up for a scrap. We are taught things at primary school that previous generations would have thought were magic. Reverting back to Arthur C Clarke for a moment, he stated


That is, magic is just science we haven't worked out yet. But that means we can't then revert back to savagery. We can't uninvent medicine, air travel, modern agriculture. All we can do is develop alternatives, which means more reliance on science and technology, not less.

I don't think science has all the answers. Some of the theorems that come out of research labs tend to be on the bizarre side, and are quietly forgotten once New Scientist have moved on. But however much we hate the bad side of technology - weapons, resistant diseases, GM crops - there are amazing things too.

I cannot think of anything more horrifying than reverting back to the religion and lifestyle of a pre-Industrial world. If you want to see what it is like, just pop over to any third world country. because we have the luxury to turn our backs on S&T while still benefitting from it, whereas those poor buggers never had it in the first place.

I think they are actually convinced they will not be christians, which is reason enough to try and convert in the eyes of the Vatican.

Indeed science and technology go hand in hand. And I notice that people forget that the simple things such as knives, ploughs, making leather or paper and all the myriad of other things are also a product of technology and what we now call science.

We're always quoting things that our ancestors knew but that have been forgotten, usually examples of herblore, countrylore etc..

Isn't that an example of technology being uninvented?

It's interesting that you cite air travel. A few years ago one could fly from London to New York in three or four hours on Concorde. It's no longer possible to do so and unlikely to be possible in the future, or not for a very long time.

Is that perhaps an instance of a technology that is starting to reverse, or perhaps a technology that come to a dead end and will now find other ways forward?

God this gets boring.

So when people say 'S&T will explode in apathy' I wonder what they have been smoking.

If you mean me WW bloody well say so. Stop digging. Anyway i don't smoke, anything.


I love science and technology. But some of us are not reliant on technology though using it. If there was a general computer crisis in the world and everything became inoperable i would gladly sign on the dotted line to make this happen. We are now comfortable, we don't need anything else.
Science is useful of course and modern technology too ('modern' to distinguish it from wheel or knives). It saves lives but also wastes lives. Science is progressing into areas that most people don't give a toss about. Realistically wgaf if we know how many universes there are or if there are parallel worlds or not or how many particles are smaller than the atom? On a day to day basis, though i read such stuff avidly and with interest it changes not a jot what i do or what i am. I use wheels and knives more than i use modern technology so i am not likely to miss it much.
Science will progress into realms (if it hasn't already) that common mortals cannot approach. The more ignorant the general populace becomes (this is happening), the less they will be interested in the progress of science because they wont be abe to understand it and the credibility of scince will fail (which to my mind it has already). The more explanations science comes up with, most of which change every five minutes anyway, the more people will lose touch and start to look for satisfaction elseswhere. As i said anything vague will do.
Next time you meet what you consider an ignornt person, ask him or her what he knows about science and what he or she thinks about religion.

We know what religion the ETs will have, they are all Scientologists...

As for religion, it will come around again when the fuel crisis hits the fan. We don't seem to be doing anything to release out stranglehold on the fossil fuel reserves so eventually we will run out with no real alternatives. When people live their entire lives in a 5 mile radius circle then pressures to conform to the social group are at their highest. The clever individuals will use religion to make their vision of society unassailable just as they do in religious states such as the Bible belt of the USA or Saudi Arabia.

That is a frightening thought-will we in fact see a regression in people's attitudes. It's especially worrying when so many people seem to have given up all sense of personal responsibility and rely on 'others' (govts, schools etc) to make choices for them- or worse, blame 'others' for the wrong choices they themselves have made.

Well, if the cap fits.....

However, you are not the only person who has stated this position woozle, so don't think I am picking on you all the time.


Maybe we don't need anything else, but we do need pretty much what we have now. PCs aren't just pretty boxes in the corner of the room. They now run traffic systems, airlines, hospitals, water purification plants etc etc ad nauseum. Science isn't just speccy bods who mutter over test-tubes. There are people who do achieve something. DNA science has opened us up to all sorts of medical advancement. Yes, I know the next point will be 'but what about our paranoid society that wants all our DNA?' but that isn't caused by science. That is caused by humans.


To use your own argument, how do you know what people give a toss about? Yes, there are people out there who don't give a crap about every little advancement made, but there are people who give a large crap about one or 2 things. Farmers, doctors, test pilots. All of these people will 'give a toss' about things you don't, and vice versa.


Are you 100% sure about that? I know there are things I would miss a great deal, like running water, power, medicine, books, music, food. You may not use any of them right now, but you may need them soon.


I think you are giving the human race less credit than it deserves. I agree that an idiocracy is definitely burgeoning, but that doesn't mean that all the clever people just went away. Unless we get killed and eaten (and lets face it, in the final conflict who will be the winners? The ones with guns, or the ones with knives?) there will be people who are interested in science, mainly because we do need S&T to develop fuels and alternative energy. It's fine for people to say 'well I am alright Jack', but I would prefer that, at least on a pagan forum, a touch more altruism was shown to our fellow humans.


I don't consider anyone ignorant until I have spoken to them about their opinions and personal knowledge. And even then I at least try to understand them. Sometimes I am not always successful.

Ah but we can uninvent it. We ARE uninventing it. slowly but surely what we know is moving out of the hands of you and me and moving inexorably into the hands of the experts. Nobody has a global vision of anything any more. Once they start to charge you the earth for medicines and you can't pay, what are you going to do? Once air travel becomes unreachable because of fuel costs, how are you going to go on holiday?
Once you can no longer afford to run a car how are you going to travel? Modern agricultural practices are ruining the earth for all of us and when they succeed what are people going to do? Do they personally have the knowledge to live their own lives without all this technogy? I thing not.
Just look what happens during a power cut. No technology, no food, no water, no light, no TV. Science and modern technology cannot help you at this point. Nice to read about but you can't eat it. What good is a computer if you can't switch it on?
As i said i like S&T and to say that we will become more reliant, initially is true, but then when costs rise beyond our reach we will all be in the shit and turn to god for help.

And what would be the point in that? Turning to god I mean? I've never known a god to actually do anything. Gods dont make the sun shine or the crops grow and we KNOW that, its not like eons ago where we did think that. You want help, I think you should help yourself (people that is woozle not you in particular). Its like saying... all else has failed, lets get really desperate and try something we know doesnt work. Baffles me, it really does.

I don't have a car.

Don't get me wrong. I know that big businesses and share holders are benefitting much more than I am from medical and technological advances, but none of that is the fault of science. It is human nature and (I hate to say this) tends to be the humans that are overtly religious, by the way. When people are telling me how to live my life morally while at the same time tugging money out of me, then I tend to think that the moral element is so much marsh gas. If someone wants to show me that religion is preferable, then show me by action, not words.


But S&T is trying to find alternatives.

Sorry Woozle, I know what you are trying to say. We got into trouble because of S&T, therefore if we get rid of S&T and go back to religion then all will be well. I don't agree. I think it is only S&T that can help us now. The fact that I don't believe that gods exist, let alone that they will help us when we are nose deep in crap may have something to do with that. But I personally believe that S&T will help us much more than worship.

Not exactly. So put it this way. I am lucky enough to live in an agricultural community in a closed valley. Here many people still use the old instruments and tools. Most still prefer the scythe to the strimmer, bike or shank's pony to the car, milking by hand rather than milking machine, making their own bread, growing their own food, being nasty to their neighbours and so on and their beliefs are part of this existence. I think these are people with 'real' lives, not artificially created ones. Whether modern technology increases or not is irrelevant to their existence because it forms part of the artifical universe. Most don't even have a TV.
If tomorrow science discovers that there are fifteen parallel universes and the smallest particle is really the biggest and actually a blue hole or whatever this is going to pass right over their heads and into oblivion and they will probably turn even more to their beliefs to stave off the uncertainty that science is creating.
There will always be progress and this is a good thing (especially in medicine) but i do feel that for most of the world (don't foget only a part uses modern-technology) scientific advancement is just a rich man's plaything and that if you think you need technology to survive then you will need it and thus play right into the hands of those that produce the technology in the first place. Science requires belief. Your average farmer or factory worker who works long hours is going to have to take quantum mechanics in the same way as he takes religion, on belief only as there is no way he will ever be able to prove it himself. This situation will escalate and either create a contrived science-religion or be ignored. I favour the latter. If science becomes god something will eventually happen and if everyone finds themselves, even momentarily, without their technology and finds they can't wipe their noses without special electrical nose suckers THEN they will turn to beliefs outside of science in an attempt to find solace.
Of course turning to religion will solve nothing but this was not the question.

I understand that, if you are used to living in a more basic way, you may not recognise some of the advances being made. But Woozle, what happens when that scythe slips and the user has to go to hospital? What happens when the crops fail? Do they get out the hot tar and hacksaw? Do they sacrifice their neighbours? Nope, the injured person will go to hospital to be treated with the latest technology and medicine available. The failed farmer will use modern farming methods, or at least look up online why his crops failed.

Even the most die hard agrarian needs to know what the weather will be. The radio is still S&T, even if it is old S&T.

No-one is suggesting that we need string theory or quantum mechanics to live (although there are some people who state the human race is doomed without them. I don't know enough about astrophysics), but I am concerned that you think that science has become a god. When you can see, feel, and touch many of the results of science then I do find it odd that it is being compared to religion, which do not have any tangible benefits apart from shaky studies about the power of prayer.

I also disagree that religion will fill a void caused by lack of science. It is not an 'either/or' situation. You can believe in both, or neither. As people become more self sufficient they will have no need of crutches, whether moral or cynical. The hope is that people will be able to discard the superfluous provided by both science and religion, not that one will push the other out all together.

I think that as long as there are people there will be some kind of faith or spiritual belief, even if organised religion bites the dust. I think that in our increasingly secular Western world superstition, New age beliefs and celebrity cults are currently replacing religion and filling spiritual needs. Most people seem to take S&T for granted and never give it a second thought.

I worked for ages in an office where, apart from the obvious lip service to christmas and easter (which are secular festivals in Britain now IMO) amongst around 50 people there were 3 with an active faith - me, a Roman Catholic and a Jehova's Witness. However, all the women were constantly going to palmists, tarot readings, clairvoyants, reiki etc. They had "lucky" bits & pieces on their mobile phones, and those little guardian angel gew gaws on their desks. A few had votive pictures of Lady Di on their notice boards, and all were devoted to following "Heat" or "Hello" and fanatically following whatever was going on with their favourite celeb. They even subscribed to those daft "numerology" text things - "text this number and find out how many children you'll have / who is your ideal partner" etc. Bonkers if you ask me. Then there's the emerging cult of St George. Flags and decals on cars, clothing, tattoos - not really anything to do with Christianity though, is it ? - more like a spirit of nationalism.

When I studied the Reformation at Uni there was a period like this in history just beforehand where people were relying on all manner of "luck" from the church - holy candle ends to stop fires, holy water, indulgences, relics, holy medals, graveyard dust and so on, as well as consulting wise folk about health and life issues. It was straying further from belief in god and more towards what was called "Divine Providence". The Reformation and subsequent Counter Reformation where the Catholics really clamped down, brought everyone back onto line with either Catholic or Protestant church (very simply put) so I hope nothing like that happens any time soon !!

Snippety it may be happening now if you look at the extremely right wing groups in protestant and catholic churches - like Libertas has interfered here in the Lisbon vote and the American right is very church driven...

Some applications become a rich man's plaything but science isn't. Many people think that a lot of science doesn't reach them or effect them - Quantum mechanics is a good example. It's very exotic, mind-mangingly bizarre and most would say it doesn't impinge on their every days lives at all. Wrong, apart from obvious at the subatomic level it is effecting us but I'll ignore that: computers, mobile phones, modern communication systems, semi-conductor technology all utilise Quantum mechanics and without it they wouldn't work.



No it doesn't. It requires experimentation and investigation - something many beliefs discourage. A scientists formulates an hypothesis. Other scientists will think "interesting", and try to replicate it in tests - either in a lab or with mathematics depending on what it is. Sometimes the idea is found to be true and sometimes it is not and discarded. Sometimes an idea will lay dormant for decades until the technology exists to actually test it practically - this is what happened with Quantum mechanics but finally the technology existed and it has been tested ever since (for the last 50 years if I remember correctly).

To return to the OP, wasn't there a 'religious gene' found in certain people that made them more pre-disposed towards religious belief of one kind or another?

I know many people, and include myself amongst that number, who believe they would have formed some kind of spiritual/religious belief regardless of outside influences.

Rhiannon

There's an article in New Scientist here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147

And one from Nature:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n12/f...g1204-1241.html

Sorry, I expressed myself badly. I meant that the product of science other than physlcal technology (which is visible to all) requires a leap of faith by joe public. Some scientists may tell me that they have proven beyond all doubt the existance of the expanding universe but other scientists tell me climate change is nothing to worry about. You cannot believe them all. As i am not able to work out quantum mechanics for myself i have to believe the scientific community when they tell me about it in exactly the same way as the catholics believe the pope when he tells them that jesus loves them. It's faith.
That scientists experiment and investigate matters not, the pope may do the same in his field but the results are the same for mr. ordinary - absence of easily accessible proof (i.e. that mr. ordinary can work out for himself) requires belief.

Oops, sorry. Missed this one.

I don't think the retirement of Concorde is a reversal of technology. It is just that the particular technology that flew that plane had either gone as far as it could, or had become too expensive. S&T doesn't mean slavishly inventing and making. It is utilising available resources for the best cost and/or outcome.

Ah, I see. Yes to a certain extent you are right and we have to take certainly some of the more bizarre scientific discoveries on faith.

Concorde was just too inefficient and JetA1 isn't cheap stuff these days, even if it is just fancy paraffin. The accident provided a great excuse to withdraw an aging and expensive- yet extremely popular- aircraft without causing complaints from the punters. Apparently, few people bothered to point out that the design still had a far, far better safety record than the ubiquitous Boeing 737.

Anyway, aeronautics aside, what if the 'religious gene' is in fact a gene that predisposes one to developing psychic talent of the kind required to converse with spirits and/or deities, rather than merely encouraging the development of belief?

Ah, dear old Arthur C.
"I sometimes think that the universe is a machine designed for the perpetual astonishment of astronomers"
&
"Absolutely no religious rites of any kind, relating to any religious faith, should be associated with my funeral."

They just don't make them klike that any more.

IMO, human angst and insecurity live on, thinly disguised as either religion, or political manifestos. And these paths feed the fears. Sheeps follow ever on.

So, maybe CS, you are asking: "Who be sheepy?"

Good to see some heated debate again!
So it sounds to me that Science is the main contender again Religion?
Is it possible that Science will eventually modify DNA significantly enough that Humans become Gods & Goddess's?
Science is an interesting thing, lots of it is purely Scientists playing with theories and ideas, occassionally they may stumble almost by chance over something that has a practical and thus marketable use and Mr Ordinary will soon here about and probably buy it.
But most Practical Science is in the hands of Companies who are motivated entirely by profit! BP for example, huge profits announced, so they could cut their take and reduce fuel prices! But they wont!
Will they throw all those profits into developing a replacement for Oil? Nope!
Major Scientific Developement is motivated by NEED.
This is usually caused by WAR.
Human intelligence appears to be falling too, I see it daily, but this is an Economy influenced effect from what I can see.
Who would win the guns or knives?
Knives probably, there will eventually be so many more of them and guns need to be reloaded!
The Global warming Issue, that is making a profit, or has the potential too, so will continue.
Its also a good distraction from the other smaller issues, like the state of the Economy, etc.
Its got little too do with reducing Global Warming rates, that is now the side effect, not the main aim.
If it isnt, it soon will be!
As for ET, well they would certainly develop a NEED for S&T to make rapid progress!

As my brain has currently retreated into wibble mode, I shall get back to you on this one.

Hi Tas, looking at the weird Sheep on another thread looks like some Scientist has already been trying to mix Staffy and Sheep DNA!
Or perhaps they are just the rejects from the 'Black Sheep' film!

I think the survival of religion and / or science and technology, depends entirely on how useful these things turn out to be in preserving the progeny of those who fill their lives with them.

It won't be about what anybody thinks should happen. If it comes to S&T versus religion, my bet is on S&T because they have so many more tricks up their sleeves and so much more potential for adaptation. If it all goes horribly wrong and religion triumphs, I just hope I'm not there to see it.

Depends on the religion and what it's claims are I suppose. I certainly don't feel threatened by science - personally I think the deeper we dig and the more we find just deepens my own beliefs and appreciation of the universe in general.



Gods, I hope not. People are insufferable in the main already. Dread to think what the politicians would be like with that sort of power. But yes, it probably will be possible to say for instance switch of the gene that ages us so, baring accidents, we would never age. A hideous thought.



Um, not quite. Usually the ideas and theories come from pre-existing theories (in the scientific sense, i.e., proven by repeated testing) and build upon them - hence electromagnetism leading to General and Special Relativity leading to Quantum Mechanics leading to ... and so on.



That's life unfortunately. It would be nice if companies were more altruistic but that's not the reason why most of them exist.



Yes, the need to know. Although a lot of scientific discoveries are, eventually, marketable in some form or another the initial scientific research is often motivated by the need to know, to discover and to understand.

Huh? Altering DNA to become gods. I dont get it. I dont understand what you mean here. Why would alterining DNA make people gods? Do gods have DNA? Im sorry Im not being facetious, I genuinely dont understand the question.



Um... thats a bit of an odd point. I dont think all science is FOR people. I dont think all science is about improving the human condition. Some science is just science. Its about improving our understanding of the universe and ourselves. For example, Im glad they found the other planets, but it doesnt DO anything for me. Same goes for most of science. Its doesnt do us as individuals any good and cant be marketed but its good to know it none the less.

Im not a Scientist and to me most of what Working Science, not just the stuff played at in Uni, is about improving things for ourselves, about inventing new stuff, maybe Technology is a better word!
We explore the universe around us, looking at its properties etc, then if it is viable and cost effective we will use it to make a new material, to build stuff out of and improve upon what we have!
Its about pushing the boundaries of the Human Experience, refining, improving but also often about making a watered down version to sell to the public for a profit, the latest must have item!
Most of Technology is probably Military in origin, like Google Earth!
Aint it clever! look how close you can get to your house now!
But if that is available and free to us, we all know that the PTB could look through our windows, over our shoulders at what we are typing!
As for Gods and Goddess's, maybe Superheroes, is a better word, Perfect Humans, improved to the Max! God like!
Science has to be useful / practical in my mind, Religion doesnt have to be, it just has to make you feel better about things, generally!

I know this will no doubt annoy some Scientists around here! But this is just my opinion and what do I know!?

I think in passing you said something very important. Profit. I stand to be corrected of course but as science need financing i would suppose that most of it has a commercial end use. That science is not longer noble adn impartial (if it ever was) is common knowledge but to what other extreme it has gone has still to become clear.
Cerain branches of the sciences, astronomy springs to mind, maybe still cling on to some degree of humanity but the rest is as you say for improving things for ourselves, commercially and therein lies the disillusionment imo and the key maybe to eventual loss of faith.

Woozle, insofar as a lot of commercial products are redundant, useless, or worse, harmful, I do agree with you about the dead-endedness of scientific discovery. But you are discounting so much, and so much potential!

Look at medicine then. Drug companies, though necessarily driven by the need for profit, still produce useful drugs amongst the rest. Research is not all funded by drug companies either. A lot of medical research goes on in medical schools and hospitals by people genuinely looking for useful answers. Keyhole surgery. Hip replacements. Artificial ears. Pain relief. CAT scans. MRI scans. Endless inventions by scientists have benefited endless individuals and will continue to do so alongside the more questionable manifestations.

And profit will always be a motive as long as there are enough of us in the world to need to compete. Before you get rid of the profit motive, you will have to get rid of most of the people. I guess you might be saying that you really do want that. You want to have small agrarian communities where life is not only nasty, brutish and short, but tedious - so tedious, boring, uninspiring, monotonous!

Me, I prefer CAT scans and the internet even if that means also having the big bad multinationals.

I've still yet to be told why this is considered a bad thing. Julai, you use the example of medicine, which is the obvious one, but it isn't the only one. Food production has evolved over millenia because the increase in size and amount doesn't only benefit the person who eats it. It also benefits the person who sells it.

Ditto meat yields (although at least in the UK we haven't succumbed to the US habit of pumping disturbing amounts of growth hormones in our meat. If anyone wants proof that S&T can be controlled, they only have to look at that). In fact I wouldn't mind an example of anything that hasn't improved in some way due to S&T and the application of money, which is derived from profits.

I must admit that today I have been somewhat shaken by the news that Centrica (British Gas owners) have reported half year profits of just under £1 billion!! Yet my gas prices are due to rise 35%. Whatever they are doing with those enormous profits, it sure aint keeping the prices down. Same with Shell, same with banks. Every time we see a price hike, we see a profit hike. But as multitudes on this thread have said, that isn't the fault of S&T. That is the fault of the people running the companies, and the Governments who refuse to control them.

Without S&T we wouldn't have books, papers, pens, pencils, farming tools, carpentry tools, plumbing, water purification,, the postal service, electricity, etc etc. I have stated on this thread and on another post that I believe that criticising technology on an internet forum is a touch weird, but I have also stated that there is physically nothing stopping anyone from having a technology free life right now. I know of at least 2 tent villages in the UK, and no doubt there are many more across Europe. All of these would provide anyone who wishes an idea of life without access to utilities, pre-packaged food, PCs, books etc. And will leave the rest of us to carry on our disgusting yet ultimately desirable capitalist ways.

I often wonder, when people say things like that, why they think a capitalist enterprise making a humungous profit would ever, ever lower its prices unless forced to. That's no way to carry on making humungous profits, now, is it?
I have no problem with capitalism on a small scale, but seeing research steered down such wasteful and nonsensical avenues as the manufacture of new 'anti-aging' creams (They don't work. Any of them.) and inumerable versions of the bloody hatchback (They're all the same, damn it!) it really pisses me off. Can we really not think of anything better to do with our resources? Bugger market forces; humanity are officially too dumb to live .

Oh, I don't think it will. I just wish it would. I am cynical enough to understand that altruism is not a natural state for humans.


Yes, the one thing that really really does annoy me is the multiple anti-dandruff shampoos and the like. Why do we need 58 ways to clean the loo? Unfortunately humans are credulous. Or am I the only person who sees the connection between the desire for a clean loo and the desire to ascend to heaven. Jesus had great PR!

Excellent website BTW.

I did say somewher that i am in favour of S&T. Especially the technology and though i would dearly love to live in a 'small' agrarian community (tedious, boring, uninspiring, monotonous????!!! given the the choice between a field and a factory i know which i'd choose) i don't feel that being forced to 'opt out' is a solution to restoring a bit of balance. Reduction in or redirection of S&T yes. Medicine is of course and excellent example of the success and direct benefit of S&T. But, again, there are only a limited number of drugs around and as an example only, most of the drugs companies are not trying to synthesise new drugs, just messing around with the already established ones to make more profit. Medical technology is improving all the time through the advancement of science. All good stuff. But agriculture is going way way off track and in many sectors science is trying to resolve problems that science created in the first place and which could quite easily be resolved by taking a step backwards.

Sorry i missed this line.Are you a daily mail reader?

I would love to know what goes on in that head of yours to even think this was an appropriate thing to say. Also, how on earth does knowing about the difference in meat farming between the UK and the US make me a Daily Mail reader?

I don't care how many smilies you use to make this look like you were joking. That was out of order.

Wyrdwoman, tis better to be thought a Daily Mail reader then a Sunday Sport reader

I disagree. At least you can be said to be ironic if caught reading the Star. There is no excuse for reading the Mail apart from agreeing with its editors, and I find that insulting and objectionable.

Oh dear. I see that i am going to have to stop replying to your posts as i seem to have a sense of humour and posting style that irritates you. Sorry. It was only meant to be a light hearted joke and nothing personal.

I can't think of anything I would like more.

The apology is appreciated however.