Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Heather wrote: "I know this may seem a bit weird, but I believe that science and religion go have in hand. In my mind, science explains religion and they together form societal networks. It is when you get extremi..."totally agree as a matter of fact many of the world's early scientist were religious they were trying to answer the how of religion
Jeff wrote: "...and electronic mass communications (or anything that catalyzes globalization)..."Taking part in this discussion via prayer then?
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Androcles and the Lion: An Old Fable Renovated
Not that I think you need to be a god botherer to be happy, but I think he has a point.
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Jeff wrote: "...and electronic mass communications (or anything that catalyzes globalization)..."Taking part in this discussion via prayer then?"
Nope, taking part via someting I think has a negative impact on humanity & the biosphere.
Jeff wrote: "Nope, taking part via someting I think has a negative impact on humanity & the biosphere..."Stop using it then...
Bunnie wrote: "Elena,you are entitled to your opinion--i do not agree at all with your visions of the world. explain to me why the world would not work if there were no cancer,disasters or murder--if no one died ..."That's the message I believe jesus was trying to spread Bunnie, that heaven & hell are the two extreme ways in which we see the world (not two opposing places in the afterlife), and it's up to each of us whether we live in a "heaven" or "hell". Then his message got hijacked by certain Romans to maintain their social position & lifestyles.
I read Angels and Demons about a year ago and i've spent most of my time trying to actually explain the issues raised in the novel.I gave up - Matters of faith cannot be completely explained nor comprehended
Jeff, it's still risky though when you're trying to put metaphorical descriptions to things of faith especially in such matters of Heaven and Hell.
Right On--Hazel!!
isnt the subject over lets just say that the world is good withand without science or with and without religonyou never know each one on the earth has thier own opinion and were just expressing it in their own way
the question is for everyones opinion
well further on i will not be reading any more stuff on this question
oh and in all i have wrote i was wrong i would live in a world with science and religon or nogt live
*Bows to Cornelia*why thank you very much, I'm here all week...
Bukky, I have to disagree, psychology is well on its way to explain the phenomenon of faith, and with biology, sociology, archaeology, and palaeontology on board as well, we're well on the way to explaining why it persisted in all its forms. Just because we don't have all the answers yet, that doesn't mean we won't one day, whether its tomorrow, next year or a millennia from now.
I can't abide that lazy thinking of "oh, its so ineffable, so far from human comprehension, we can't possibly ever explain it". That's just a cop out. If religion encourages lazy thinking of this kind, then I reckon I'm well off out of it.
No other species on the planet has science and they are fine?Really? Aside from the constant struggle to survive and constant fear of predators, I'm sure they are having a grand old time.
You are going a bit out on a twig with that statement, jeff.
He really is isn't he. Jeff, without science, you wouldn't even be able to make that statement. If you think that the rest of the animal kingdom is right, living "without science", (you know, that science that's used to prevent extinction, and preserve habitats and species), then maybe you should try living without science. Off you pop, oh, and no taking any modern equipment, no food from the supermarket, no shoes or clothes made in factories from manmade materials, no matches or lighters, not even a flint and steel, no axe to cut wood, no equipment whatsoever. You get out there and you try to survive without any science... oh, wait you can't, you'll freeze to death, if you don't starve first. Science (which, btw, includes all technological advances, including housing) would be needed when you tried to create fire using two flints, or if you decided to make a knife, or bow, when you wanted to kill something to eat. You could try it, you'd be naked as the day you were born, and living on worms and whatever slow moving animals you can catch with your bare hands (no snares or traps, thats technology, thus science, oh, and no road kill, that would be taking advantage of modern technology and science), eating berries off the bush - tell me, can you tell which are poisonous and which are good to eat? I hope so, because that book with the pictures in that would give you the answer, made in a factory, by machines, created by science.
We have science because we've evolved to have it, because we needed to be warm, and we needed to eat, and we needed to be safe. I can't say why our ancestors reached the point where they were furless and upright, and easy to catch, but it happened, and so our brains got bigger and better, and developed a large number of synaptic connections for its size, and we developed science and technology in order to survive.
Oh, and just a small point, chimpanzees, crows, ravens, octopods, squid and cuttlefish, just a short list of animals that create and use tools and show impressive problem solving abilities.
Jeff wrote: "Didn't mean anything supernatural by spirituality, I just meant spirit itself. "Sorry to keep pushing this, but what do you mean by 'spirit'? To me that unavoidably has a supernatural meaning, but if you say that's not what it means to you, I need to understand what it does mean to you..
Jeff wrote: "Bunnie, here are some examples of science I spurn: nuclear power, nukes, any assemblyline process, which is not only prevalent in business but also in culture/social structure these days, chemically altering other forms of life in our "food" production, chemical pesticides (read Silent Spring), and electronic mass communications (or anything that catalyzes globalization). "
Nuclear power is the best and currently only viable option we have for baseload electricity production with low greenhouse gas emissions (if you take full lifecycle into consideration it is lower emission than solar PV), and it is, despite what you may think, one of the safest forms of power production. If you want to debate this I am happy to provide links.
Nuclear weapons, no argument there.
Assemblyline process: so you refuse to drive a car? Eat most food available from supermarkets? Use a computer? Phone? Live in a house made from commercially available building materials?
"electronic mass communications (or anything that catalyzes globalization)": so again you would spurn, let's see, forums like this? Phones? Do you refuse to shop anywhere other than locally owned stores? Refuse to buy anything other than locally grown food? Is the PC (or electronic device) you are using to communicate on this forum locally made?
Jeff wrote: "Nope, taking part via someting I think has a negative impact on humanity & the biosphere. "So why do you use it?
Sheri wrote: "totally agree as a matter of fact many of the world's early scientist were religious they were trying to answer the how of religion "And the fact that these days the majority of scientists are not religious? The fact that hundreds of years ago scientists were often religious is more a reflection of society at the time than on science.
layal wrote: "isnt the subject over lets just say that the world is good withand without science or with and without religon"I don't think this subject is ever over. As long as people are being civil even while disagreeing, I don't see any reason why we can't keep discussing it. I would disagree that we can just say that the world is good *without* science. As Hazel has pointed out in another post, try living without science and see how things go. The same evangelicals who reject science when it comes to things like evolution seem more than happy to rely on modern medicine, which in some cases (antibiotics) rely on the science of evolution to continue being effective...Of course there are some who do spurn modern medicine as part of their religion, but they tend to end up dying of preventable or treatable illnesses. This is fine if it is as a result of their own choices, but parents whose children die as a result of these choices should be charged with murder (not manslaughter) in every case.
In a world without religion.
Bukky wrote: "I read Angels and Demons about a year ago and i've spent most of my time trying to actually explain the issues raised in the novel."I read it a few years ago and I've spent most of my time wondering why.....
To be honest I don't recall it raising any issues at all....what issues do you feel the book raised?
Hazel wrote: "I can't abide that lazy thinking of "oh, its so ineffable, so far from human comprehension, we can't possibly ever explain it". That's just a cop out. If religion encourages lazy thinking of this kind, then I reckon I'm well off out of it. "It's the reason why religion gained a foothold and has survived for so long....by encouraging people not to think it has enabled the church hierarchy to control, and it is also often something that people want....so they don't have to think for themselves, to confront things which are often uncomfortable (death is ineveitable, there is no afterlife). In some ways modern media relies on the same principles, tell people what they should like, read, buy, listen to etc.....it is the only reason I can think of that shows like Idol, X-Factor etc are so popular, and why Fox news still has anyone watching it. People don't want to thnk for themselves, they want to be told what to think.....if Fox news tells me climate change is some vast conspiracy, then I don't need to worry about it...I can just sit back and watch some more reality TV and not think.
OK Cerebrus,I'll say first I am a christian and a sworn protector of the christian faith,so when someone starts portraying your faith as a fluke and a massive conspiracy,divine revelations as planned arrangements and so on,it is enough reason to speak out against it coz it ain't totally true,just like what happened after the Da Vinci Code, the confraternityOpus Dei openly came out to defend themselves as being different from the ideas presented in the novel.
Bukky wrote: "OK Cerebrus,I'll say first I am a christian and a sworn protector of the christian faith..."Any particular branch of christianity?
Barbarossa,I don't really get what you mean by branch, but anyway I am an Anglican.
Bukky wrote: "Barbarossa,I don't really get what you mean by branch, but anyway I am an Anglican."Heretic!
You will burn forever in hellfire!
Sorry, that isn't my actual response...I merely use it to illustrate the schismatic and fractured sectarianism that can result from religion.
The 30 years war had religion as a driving force (OK it was a bit more complicated than that, as are most wars). But even when people follow the same book their interpretation of it can lead to justification for killing their fellow believer...in many instances with more fury and righteousness than if they were killing the infidel. Look at the Sunni/Shiite situation in the middle east for example.
Bukky wrote: "OK Cerebrus,I'll say first I am a christian and a sworn protector of the christian faith,so when someone starts portraying your faith as a fluke and a massive conspiracy,divine revelations as plann..."So you object to the portrayal of Christianity in the book, but you rated the book 5 stars? If it's any consolation, as an atheist even I thought the portrayal of Christianity was very one dimensional (but thats about one dimension more than the characters in the book....)
As a book it had no impact on my impression of religion.
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Sorry, that isn't my actual response...I merely use it to illustrate the schismatic and fractured sectarianism that can result from religion. ."This made me think of this, from Emo Philips:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
To continue the comedy note, this thread is reminding me of the old Python sketch:http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...#
What he means by branch, Bucky, is that there was roman catholicism, then later people who had different interpretations of the holy texts split from them, and branched off into different denominations of what, in the end, is the same church. You wouldn't be able to be Anglican if Henry VIII hadn't split from Rome so that he could have a divorce and marry Anne Boleyn, and created the church of england and then if Elizabeth I hadn't then reinstated it after her elder sister Mary had binned it in favour of going back to RC. An entire church created so one man could divorce one woman in favour of another. Heresy. Then the Anglican church as a separate entity from CoE developed much later, as a result of a disagreement on scripture. Heresy piled upon heresy.Then for the next several decades, a few centuries in fact, as RC and CoE monarchs came and went, then the followers of the other church (RC under a CoE monach, and vice versa) would be persecuted and killed, by order of the monarch, who was head of the church in the case of CoE, and by the pope in the case of RC. A woman in my home town, called Margaret Clitheroe, was martyred on 25 March 1586 (good friday, that year), for being a roman catholic, and for holding secret masses in her home. She refused to plead to the case, to avoid her children beign forced to testify, so she was sentanced to death by crushing. She was stripped and had a handkerchief tied across her face then laid out upon a sharp rock the size of a man's fist, a door was put on top of her and slowly loaded with an immense weight of rocks and stones (the small sharp rock would break her back when the heavy rocks were laid on top of her). Her death occurred within fifteen minutes; she was left for 6 hours before the weight was removed from her corpse. But hey, that's religion for you, those wacky Christians with their moral values...
Cerebus wrote: "Sheri wrote: "totally agree as a matter of fact many of the world's early scientist were religious they were trying to answer the how of religion "
And the fact that these days the majority of scie..."
Just to add to what cerebus said here, the majority of early scientists were often agnostic or athiest, but had to be "religious" to get the funding, rather than getting executed. Famously, Socrates refused to give up his atheism, and was killed by a slow acting poison, being made to walk until he couldn't anymore, and had lost all feeling in his legs.
Cerebrus wrote: "So you object to the portrayal of Christianity in the book, but you rated the book 5 stars?"I do not only concentrate on the theme of a novel in my ratings.No doubt that other novel elements of the book was also just superb.Nevertheless I also enjoyed the theme though it was obnoxious to me and my fellow christian faithfuls,it still gave me something to ponder about.I am never against the book.it's still one of my best.
I have to really concede to the fact of segmentation associated with religion.I don't have any response to it only that human frailties and diverse opinions seemed to have taken its toll even in Godly things.But it's no less than what is also obtainable in other world organizations and Government.Southern sudan breaking out from Northern sudan for instance.Hazel I am really impressed by your grasp of religious history.I am well aware that the church has a dark,controversial history but as it goes "God works in mysterious ways".Maybe it's part of his grand plan(I didn't say that)
God works in mysterious ways? That's one of the biggest cop outs in history. My grasp of religious history is, in my humble opinion, severely lacking, but I can honestly say nowhere near as lacking as some peoples understanding of science. Maybe it's part of his grand plan(I didn't say that)
Yes you did, right there, see, you said it. If gods grand plan includes a type of worm that buries its way into a persons eye, blinding them. Or if it includes cot death, or meningitis taking a baby from its parents, famine, plague, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, all these things that are not the fault of humans, and then on top of that it includes massacres (sanctioned, apparently, by god), child sacrifice, subjugation of women and the poor, then honestly, if that god existed, I would want nothing to do with it.
Luckily though, there is no such thing as any god, no fairies, or dragons, no demons or devils, no succubi, no angels. So, I can actually simply dismiss the "gods grand plan" theory, or the "mysterious ways" idea, and actually try looking at the natural world and using scientific method through biology, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, astronomy, and psychology to find empirical results (that can be repeated) to explain why these things happen, which by the way, works.
Hazel wrote......All these things that are not the faults of humans.....Do you even have any idea the amount of damage your saint science has contributed to the world.Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Oil spills, radiation etc
Oh!...Meningitis taking a baby from its parents.Who then accounts for the over 100 babies per minute lost from abortions by youths and Doctors who have no moral reference or guidepost.
Religion may have been guilty,but science dosen't even understand guilt.
The grand plan thing drives me nuts. It's a huge cop out, which when you mention the religious folk thy then do some song and dance about 'he gave us free will'.Which is it? if there's a plan, then god is responsible for the bad stuff and needs to be called on it, if he gave us free will and is sitting back letting us do the bad stuff, then we need to take responsiblity for the bad stuff.
and maybe think about why we need god in the first place, if he's just letting everything happen.
and if his ways are so mysterious why do people keep claiming they know what his ways are? If everybody knows them, how are they mysterious?
Bukky wrote: "Hazel wrote......All these things that are not the faults of humans.....Do you even have any idea the amount of damage your saint science has contributed to the world.Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Oil spi..."
Surely though if anyone believes in the whole "mysterious ways/gods plan thing" then even the things done by the non-religious have to be taken into account as part of that plan.
Whereas if you do not believe in any god then the misuse of science can be squarely put at the door af the perpetrators...whether the perps are non-religious technicians or bomb wearing/plane crashing maniacs.
Oh!...Meningitis taking a baby from its parents.Who then accounts for the over 100 babies per minute lost from abortions by youths and Doctors who have no moral reference or guidepost.Religion may have been guilty,but science dosen't even understand guilt.
Oh my god. Are you really so naive as to think that there is no guilt in sciences past? Do you even understand the amount of ethics that are involved in science these days, dictating the things that you are and are not allowed to do.
Abortion, by the way, can only be done when the embryo (not foetus, embryo) is still just a bundle of cells. You do understand don't you, that one ejaculation contains millions of spermatazoa, the vast majority of which are dead within seconds of entering the vagina, that of the remaining few, most die before getting anywhere near the egg, and that only one actually gets to fertilise the egg. And then, you have the fact that the vast majority of the eggs that do get fertilised then spontaneously miscarry before the woman even knows she's pregnant. Claiming its immoral to remove a blastocyst that may be the result of rape, or incest, that may in fact result in the death of the mother or child, or both, shows a massive level of naivety and scientific illiteracy on your part.
Did you know that almost every cell (except stem cells, which is why they are so useful in medical science) in your body has died and been replaced regularly, and that every seven years a full cycle of cell replacement has taken place, and so you don't even have the body you were born with anymore. Human cells die continuously, you kill them yourself by eating spicy foods, or through cuts and grazes, your hair falls out and replaces itself every 4 years (3 months if its your pubic hair), so seeing as that those cells you want to save from abortion are actually going to be dead within 7 years, is it really that big a deal if we speed up the process through abortion, as they're not a person yet anyway.
And I assume you have actually read the bible? Because that, as a moral guideline, would have us all committing genocide, rape, incest, sacrifice, it would have women subjugated, it would have the "great unwashed" kept poor and illiterate, it would repress medical advancement and it supports slavery. The bible is nothing if not a diatribe of hurting other people, subjugation and racial supremacy.
Have you tried reading a few science text books? have you read The Origin of Species, or even better, read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.
And tell me, why is it ok for God to take hundreds of children (who are alive, and not microscopic clusters of cells) in the third world (and quite a few in the so called first world countries) through starvation and drought, but its not ok for a girl who's been raped to have the blastocyst created by that rape to be removed, and save the child from being raised by a mother who will always be reminded of how the child came to be every time she looked at it? Its inhuman to suggest that the mother and child should suffer the psychological damage that will cause on top of the damage that the actual rape caused, because a book written by people who didn't understand how the world actually worked says so.
Why is it ok for someone to murder a doctor who worked at an abortion clinic, to save the unborn children? It happened, its happened several times in fact, a full grown adult killed by people who believe that murdering unborn children is wrong. And I bet they don't even grasp the irony and hypocrisy.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, always fniish on a song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxXrTR...
If people abuse science, it's the fault of the people.If people abuse religion, they want to accept no responsibility for it, because god said they could, or it's part of his plan.
and then we are supposed to let them get away with it because we are supposed to respect their beliefs.
Basically, people use religion as a huge' get out of jail free' card to ensure they have to accept no responsibility for their actions.
and these are the people considered good and moral, because they have religion.
Seconds away, round 2...Ding-ding!
What's the objective for all the people in the world ? To live in peace.For that, if each people need to believe in something which can help them to have answers to lot of questions, something like science or religion (one or more than one), and if the solution people find for himself is good, so please stop thinking that this solution is THE solution.
Living in peace is the most important.
Audreyvizuete wrote: "What's the objective for all the people in the world ? To live in peace.For that, if each people need to believe in something which can help them to have answers to lot of questions, something lik..."
Living in peace. We all arrive at our spirituality at different times and different levels. My family wonders about my spirituality, but I have discovered that I am at a higher understanding. Going back or going ahead is not healthy. We need to understand and live in peace.
Travis wrote: "No other species on the planet has science and they are fine?Really? Aside from the constant struggle to survive and constant fear of predators, I'm sure they are having a grand old time.
You ar..."
I didn't say they were having a grand old time, I said they were fine, in that they continue to survive sustainably. And animals are far less afraid than mankind is.
Cerebus wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Sorry, that isn't my actual response...I merely use it to illustrate the schismatic and fractured sectarianism that can result from religion. ."This made me think of this, f..."
Funny stuff Cerebus, that's a good one.
Travis wrote: "If people abuse science, it's the fault of the people.If people abuse religion, they want to accept no responsibility for it, because god said they could, or it's part of his plan.
and then we a..."
Science is far more dangerous than religion is. Religion may divide people and get them to go to war, and give them all sorts of ridiculous justifications for their actions, but it's science that has brought humanity to a point where our actions could actually cause our own extinction (nukes, environmental pollution/atmospheric destruction).
But science can find the solutions to those things, and religion cannot.
Sorry, that was a shit post. Science is responsible for a fair few reprehensible things, its true, but just because it is doesn't detract from what religion has done. Both have done bad things, but only science can be used to fix the damage done. You can't pray and get rid of global warming, you can't pay your tithe, and hope that deforestation goes away. But through science, and yes I admit it, politics (urgh, i feel dirty now), they can be stemmed, they can be fixed, and they can be made better. Maybe not today, but someday.
Bukky wrote: "Do you even have any idea the amount of damage your saint science has contributed to the world.Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Oil spi..."But if you are correct and god does work in mysterious ways, then how can you be sure that all of these things are not part of his 'master plan'? If he is a loving god as we are told, why didn't he appear to the engineers at Chernobyl and let them know that the test they were about to run was probably not the best idea all things considered? Why didn't he appear to the designers of Chernobyl and say "you know what guys, I'd really suggest that a containment building is important enough to not leave out of your design, 'cos if this thing blows there'll be nothing there to contain it!'......or was he too busy appearing on pieces of toast or telling people in rural America that they should start their own religious sects and convince young girls that whatever is done to them is all part of god's plan? You can't have it both ways, saying god works in mysterious ways, but that bad stuff isn't god.
And btw, if you want to bring Chernobyl up, please make sure you do your research. I would suggest starting with the World Health Organisation who have spent 20+ years studying the area and the resulting effects. I'm reasonably confident their findings will surprise you.
A quick pop quiz! Which form of power generation is responsible for the most deaths?
damn the swot in me, I want to answer that question, but I'm not going to, and see what gets said.
I gotta say at this stage I am very tempted to just take a back seat and let Hazel respond more, she's doing an excellent job....I have to applaud message #630 which said everything I was thinking, *and* managed to include pubic hair! :)
Yeah, you wouldn't believe that I'm doing this on a wing and a prayer would you ;DBut don't, its nice to know I'm not a lone voice, this is the first time I've had this feeling in one of these discussions, I've always been told on forums that I have to respect other peoples beliefs, but when I start saying stuff about atheism I get told to shut up because "its offensive", even though all I do is talk about scientific research, and how homoeopathy is a big pile of horseshit
Hazel wrote: "homoeopathy is a big pile of horseshit"If I weren't an atehist I'd have shouted "Hallelujah!" when I read that! Making money by selling people water when it probably means they are rejecting actual medicine is another thing that I think is evil....wonder if that's all part of god's plan too?
"I've always been told on forums that I have to respect other peoples beliefs, but when I start saying stuff about atheism I get told to shut up because "its offensive" "
To be honest it's that perception that I want to challenge more than I want to challenge anyone's beliefs....I don't actually want to 'convert' anyone, but I do want them to realise that they don't have the right to speak about their faith while at the same time shutting down anything that may question that faith. If the believers reading this thread come away with the idea that it is ok to have these kinds of discussions, then I'm happy....particularly for those from the US, where from what I can gather the whole concept of athiesm is hugely misunderstood....
Also, I just like debating, it forces me and others to think, and that can never be a bad thing :)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Not in the least, but I do believe in challenging things that people say when I feel they are incorrect, unclear (either poorly explained or poorly..."
Didn't mean anything supernatural by spirituality, I just meant spirit itself.
Bunnie, here are some examples of science I spurn: nuclear power, nukes, any assemblyline process, which is not only prevalent in business but also in culture/social structure these days, chemically altering other forms of life in our "food" production, chemical pesticides (read Silent Spring), and electronic mass communications (or anything that catalyzes globalization).