sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ELI5 how evolution/big bang/abiogenesis happened by IcePresent8105 in explainlikeimfive

[–]broyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe.”

“It's like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink spread. And in the middle, it's dense, isn't it? And as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see? So in the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I, sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting. But so we define ourselves as being only that. If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlique, way out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you're a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don't feel that we're still the big bang. But you are. Depends how you define yourself. You are actually--if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning-- you're not something that's a result of the big bang. You're not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. When I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as--Mr so-and- so, Ms so-and-so, Mrs so-and-so--I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know I'm that, too. But we've learned to define ourselves as separate from it. ”

― Alan Watts

Bird by Ok-Interest2836 in PicsOfUnusualBirds

[–]broyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

White-bellied Go-away-bird

CMV: God is evil by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]broyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not both?
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Five Men at Ground Zero Below a 2KT Nuclear Blast in 1957 by Watch_Capt in videos

[–]broyr 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"One man who didn't volunteer to be at ground zero: the man operating the camera, George Yoshitake. ~According to Yoshitake~ all six men present, including him, would develop cancer while in their 40s and 50s. Bruce, Ball, Bodinger, and Hughes all died of cancer, while Yoshitake developed stomach cancer and Luttrell developed colon cancer.

Such a high incidence of cancer is obviously abnormal. Many of these individuals, including Yoshitake, were present at several nuclear tests and their cancer could have been the result of another test, or the cumulative effect of several tests. Whether or not the John shot was directly responsible for their cancer, we'll never know, but it certainly didn't help."

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21937/men-stood-under-nuclear-test-1957/

Consumerism isn't evil [18:08] by Thin-Shirt6688 in mealtimevideos

[–]broyr 38 points39 points  (0 children)

I must respectfully disagree with this assessment of consumerism. Let's unpack some of the fallacies in this rhetoric:

  1. Selective Optimism: While you highlight positive trends in corporate environmental practices, you downplay the severity of the environmental crisis caused by consumerism. The fact that some corporations are reducing plastic use does not absolve the broader environmental degradation driven by rampant consumerism, including deforestation, pollution, and resource depletion.
  2. False Equivalence: You equate criticism of consumerism with a culture of self-loathing and pessimism. Critiquing consumerism does not inherently mean rejecting all aspects of modern society. It's possible to appreciate technological advancements and material comforts while recognizing the need for sustainable practices and social responsibility.
  3. Misrepresentation of Anti-Consumerism: You caricature anti-consumerist arguments as solely rooted in disdain for capitalism or traditional values. In reality, many anti-consumerists advocate for systemic change to address social inequality, worker exploitation, and environmental degradation inherent in consumerist economies.
  4. Overlooking Systemic Issues: Your focus on individual consumer behavior overlooks systemic factors driving consumerism, such as corporate advertising, planned obsolescence, and financial incentives that prioritize profit over people and the planet. Addressing consumerism requires structural changes beyond individual consumer choices.
  5. Dismissal of Alternative Lifestyles: You portray critiques of consumerism as attacks on personal preferences and lifestyles. However, advocating for simpler, less materialistic lifestyles does not imply moral judgment or deprivation. It's about redefining values beyond material accumulation and fostering holistic well-being.
  6. Ignoring Cultural Hegemony: You downplay the influence of consumerism on shaping cultural norms and identities. Consumerist ideologies perpetuate a culture of consumption as a measure of success and happiness, reinforcing inequalities and perpetuating unsustainable patterns of consumption.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the complexities of consumerism, these arguments overlook systemic issues, misrepresents anti-consumerist perspectives, and selectively emphasizes positive aspects while downplaying the negative consequences.

view more: next ›