New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

almarst2003 - 03:09pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10373 of 10375)

"Increase the sustainable energy in a cultural system, increase its order, lower its entropy , increase its self esteem and decrease the evil deeds."

Well. Those definitions need some more precision.

sustainable energy - I hoped you would point to the fossil fuels and gurbage-piled consumerism.

cultural system - You mean outside broken schools, failed inner cities, prolifiration of drugs, overcrowded prisons, masses of dislocated homeless, hopeless unensured unemployed, screwd health system, broken families of epidemic proportion, glorious fast food, bunge drinking, Holliwood, Big Fox and Baby Foxed mass communication, drunk flag waving and smiling Legislative Branch counting their generous Donors and dupped public oppinion polls?

increase its order - You mean other then order-of-magnitude of military spending. growing CIA, FBI and NSA just to count what is publicaly known?

lower its entropy - Thats a bright spot looking on a number of eligible voters affected.

increase its self esteem - Here is a success again. The watching of dead bodies of "sworn enemies" are extreamly helpful. Particularely from a save distance via a color TV tubes.

decrease the evil deeds - Unfortunatly, here lies the greatest controversy of all. Not all have notices how fast the yestardays "freedom" fighters and "great friends of democracy" turned out to be "new hitlers" and "enemies of humankind". A trully elusive one for most to understand except a fiew "bright minds" in Washington. Thankfully, due to the all above, they have no problem explaining those difficalt issues to the truth-seeking nation.

Amen.

BTW. I liked the "Thermodynamic" a lot. Its a very hot study right now in downtown Bagdad.

almarst2003 - 04:08pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10374 of 10375)

Anti-war protests sweep Africa - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2873045.stm

Anti-war protests span the globe - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2875555.stm

Watch for Bagdad "humanitarian" treatment as inpatient "liberators" turn it into a shiny example of a best stone-age city on Earth. Covered with flowers of happy smiling Iraqi babies waving the American and British flags and chanting "Happy Long Live Together to Magnificent Gorge and Tony".

dccougar - 05:00pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10375 of 10375)
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

lchick, the article you refer to referencing Dawkins was written by David Stove. Stove is a philosopher and clearly not a biologist, as shown in another of his articles, "Are you a Darwinist" ( http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/stove_darwinian.htm ), which is fairly full of misconceptions of what is accepted within evolutionary theory.

I do not concur with the way Dawkins and other sociobiologists refer to genes as "agents", but neither do I concur with Stove's assertion that this amounts to some "new religion". I think if an actual biologist or sociobiologist is asked, this method of reference is for analogy only. Indeed, Dawkins flatly denies any conscious or intelligent direction coming from our genes. Biologists assume other biologists understand how evolution works and that they will not be led astray by such suggestive language. Unfortunately, philosophers and sociologists misunderstand the implications, resulting in books being written decrying the idiocy of the sociobiologists, who I understand are generally as rigorous as other scientists, or nearly so.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense