Monsanto name to become Bayer

@Glennn,

He just wants to be superior and condescending.

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Obviously science can be used for good or for ill.

It becomes increasingly obvious to me every day that it will be used mostly for ill.

This is not the fault of scientists, but rather, it is the result of the fact that many people can only enjoy life when others are suffering. Their instincts evolved in a time of scarcity, and their psychology is incompatible with everyone having everything they need.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Yeah, he plays catch with you while simultaneously saying he can't be suckered into playing.

0 Replies

@Kolyo,

Quote:

It becomes increasingly obvious to me every day that it will be used mostly for ill.

Really? You are saying that on a digital computer, likely over wi-fi over a global internet. Do you realize how ironic that is?

You likely have had medical care involving radiology, been immunized and you have probably benefited from antibiotics. Your water is processed and safe. Your life expectancy had literally doubled from human beings 100 years ago.

You drive a car with electric ignition and airbags. You have access to jet airplanes. And I haven't even mentioned the robots on Mars.

Saying that science is "mostly for ill" is ridiculous... especially from someone on the internet.

I don't understand anti-science liberals.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Your water is processed and safe.

Many people drink dirtier water than they did 100 years ago, due to our destruction of their environments.

We had the resources to fix that ages ago. If we had really wanted to, we would have.

Robots on Mars were more important to the people making the decisions.

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

Quote:

Many people drink dirtier water than they did 100 years ago.

Where?

0 Replies

It's all over the news how unsafe America's water is.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

It's all over the news how unsafe America's water is.

Sure. But, we are comparing it to 100 years ago. America 100 years ago had outbreaks of water borne diseases including cholera, dysentery, and typhoid. The child mortality rate was above 20% and the life expectancy was in the mid 40s.

When is the last time we have had a significant outbreak of cholera?

Thank you science.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

You don't consider lead, oil and sludge that dangerous?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

America 100 years ago had outbreaks of water borne diseases including cholera, dysentery, and typhoid. The child mortality rate was above 20% and the life expectancy was in the mid 40s.

I wasn't thinking about America.

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/06/07/india-pollution_custom-8d196ff58fd47b4c202bd9e5dfbe1b31b0fc2371-s800-c85.jpg

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't understand anti-science liberals.

I'm not anti-science.

Someone who thinks the solution to the Herpes epidemic is "destigmatization" rather than finding a cure is anti-science.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

The issue here is your rejection of science.

Science isn't perfect... but science has undeniably benefited human beings in multiple ways including health, sanitation, travel, information, architecture and of course, agriculture.

We have obvious social problems, particularly in parts of the world that are plagued with war and poverty. But these problems existed 100, 200, 500 years ago. In any time in history, there were places that were experiences severe problems with disease famine and war. That doesn't excuse it, it is just saying that it has always been true. But, things are better now than they have ever been.

Fewer people are dying of famine than any time in human history. That doesn't mean that people aren't dying... it means that we are making progress. More people have access to safe water than any time in history. Globally infant mortality is lower than any time in history, and life expectancy is higher. Diseases have been eradicated and epidemics have been halted. People have been housed, and fed and treated that in the past would have just died with no one watching.

Thank you science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Great post

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Thank you science indeed.

Weigh the good science has done against the bad and the good outweighs the bad exponentially.

1 Reply

I have never rejected science, as you charge, every time we disagree on something. Science is never the problem. It's the misapplication of science, either for monetary gain or misguided goals that cause more destruction than advancement. You are fortunately not the arbiter of what makes good science.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

1. There are arbiters of scientific fact. They are the scientific establishment and institutions. They are the people who have the educations and do the hard work to actually do science.

On many issues; GMOs, Colloidal Silver, you reject the science and choose your own ideological beliefs. If you find a reason to reject science whenever it finds something that contradicts your preexisting beliefs... then science has no meaning to you. If science can't change your mind when the facts indicate you are wrong, then why bother?

2. Application of science is social policy, not science. You aren't just rejecting social policy. You are rejecting scientific facts. If you want to ban GMOs, that is your opinion. Everyone has a right to their own opinions. If you make claims that GMOs are harmful to health or the environment, now you are making statements about science that can be shown to be false.

3. You trust the scientists who agree with your ideology; for example climate scientists. I have never heard you question their findings. You attack the scientists working on issues where science doesn't back up your ideology. Do you see the problem?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Anybody who knows jack about silver knows modern medicine still uses it. They just don't broadcast it. So in fact the medical establishment does not reject it. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Topical silver (used on the skin) has some appropriate medical uses, such as in bandages and dressings to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections. It’s also in medicines to prevent conjunctivitis (an eye condition) in newborns. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter drugs containing colloidal silver that are taken by mouth.

You are being deliberately misleading. There are medical uses for permethrin (which is a toxic insecticide) too. No would suggest ingesting the stuff. There are also medical uses for gamma radiation. So what?

The NCCIH (i.e. the scientific establishment... the part of the NIH that works with the science of alternative medicine) says

NCCIH wrote:

Silver has no known function or benefits in the body when taken by mouth.
Silver is not a nutritionally essential mineral or a useful dietary supplement.

You reject this scientific finding (backed by numerous studies), don't you.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If you make claims that GMOs are harmful to health or the environment, now you are making statements about science that can be shown to be false.

Rather than just telling him that his statement about Monsanto can be shown to be false, why don't you actually show him the science that shows his statement to be false?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

They never quit using silver. They just tried to keep people from using colloidal, because it is so cheap. Up until they tried to restrict it it was prescribed by lots of doctors. One thing to consider: the people who make modern medications cause the deaths of thousands of people per year, these 'scientists.' Colloidal silver never kills anybody.

1 Reply

Monsanto name to become Bayer

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know