Time Travel question

[devilof76]

Pollution shortens lifespan. Sometimes there is a difference between merely BELIEVING you have a better quality of life, and actually having one. I was talking about an objective standard, rather than a subjective standard. If one person is harmed by it, it proves that is is a reduction in quality of life and that any greater quality of life from it is an illusion. It is a placebo at best.
You can increase quality of life without causing pollution, but it requires more intelligence.

That explains why lifespans have been steadily increasing since the industrial revolution, particularly in capitalist, industrialized countries (which, as it were, are the only ones with constantly improving standards of air and water quality; communism, predictably, has the opposite effect).

As long as pure air and water is more important to you than longevity, I don't see how you're contradicting yourself. That's consistent. But the only objective moral standard on this Earth is human life, the only qualification being that it does not subsist on cannibalistic, dog-eat-dog principles (i.e., collectivism).

 

[devilof76]

I cut out all your crap about government funding and duties of a citizen because that is a completely separate debate entirely. And you don't seem to get some basic fundamentals of democracy, taxes, and citizenship.

This isn't a democracy.

Tell me more about how I don't understand political philosophy. Please.

Yes, they do. Pretty much all of them agree it is possible.

Sure they do.

Because there is nothing simple about "past, present, and future".

Obviously, it's harder for some than others.

Time and the way we perceive it is entirely more complex than a linear constant at a fixed rate.

Time is not perceptible (it's an abstraction).

Objects can be perceived, and so can their actions. Relating change in the position of objects to a constant, uniform standard is the abstract perspective by which we measure time, and make it something that can be observed. The unit of measurement doesn't have to be in terms of the rotation of the Earth (there is no metaphysical unit of time), but it has to be uniform. You can try to measure change with seconds that are different lengths if you like, but I don't see how that will be particularly useful.

Regardless of the unit chosen, things still happen before and after other things, relative to an observer. Sometimes, they even happen before and after when there is no observer present. (Imagine that.)

My claim is not that time travel is possible, but rather that neither you or I is smart enough to know. Neither of us are scientists let alone quantum physicists.

So what?

But those that are say it is possible. So if you would really like to call them quacks or shoot down their theories, that burdon of proof rests entirely on you; the person without any scientific credentials.

No scientific credentials, but I do manage to comprehend that 2+2 never equals five. Or 4.000000000000000000001.

If a million scientists told me otherwise, I would call them idiots and frauds. Could you pass that along for me? Grazi.

Naw, your last explanation didn't contain any science in it. I doubt you reposting it would change anything.

I doubt it would as well. Brick is thick.

Tell me about it.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between intelligence and obedience.

 

[Wulf]

I believe that as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVY2MIy8xU0

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irKxtVOymXY[/ame]

 

[Blackthornone]

That explains why lifespans have been steadily increasing since the industrial revolution, particularly in capitalist, industrialized countries (which, as it were, are the only ones with constantly improving standards of air and water quality; communism, predictably, has the opposite effect).

As long as pure air and water is more important to you than longevity, I don't see how you're contradicting yourself. That's consistent. But the only objective moral standard on this Earth is human life, the only qualification being that it does not subsist on cannibalistic, dog-eat-dog principles (i.e., collectivism).

Lifespans have been increasing only in cities due to improved sanitation and overall hygiene, and improved medical care, particularly emergency medical care.
However, the Essenes existed thousands of years ago and were living past 100 when most other people(living in cities) were dying at age 35.

The Essenes had no major advanced technology to live longer lives than people do today, on average. That was over 2,000 years ago.
The Essenes practiced a vegetarian diet and clean living. They worked for 4 hours a day and spent the rest of their time reading, meditating and learning for their spiritual benefit.

The Essenes lived in isolated communities away from the filth and moral decay of the cities.

 

[devilof76]

Um, people live into their hundreds today, even while wallowing in the filth and decay of cities.

The real question is how many lives would you sacrifice to return the world to your ideal?

 

[Blackthornone]

Um, people live into their hundreds today, even while wallowing in the filth and decay of cities.

The real question is how many lives would you sacrifice to return the world to your ideal?

The AVERAGE lifespan was greater with the Essenes than with people today.

As to the second question, every human being on Earth should be able to have the optimum quality of life, and the population should be lowered enough to achieve that. That would be achieved by only one natural pregnancy for every woman who wanted children until the population drops low enough.

 

[devilof76]

And do you have a source for your claims about the Essene lifespan?

 

[BadMoon]

He was referring to you.