Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The human need for science/technology/law      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FyrKrakn
Joined: 2/21/2010
Msg: 1
The human need for science/technology/lawPage 1 of 2    (1, 2)
I was wondering why our eyes aren't better at keeping crap out of them. Then I wondered at my constantly allergic nasal passages, and throat and skin. I got a stupid wood sliver that nearly instantly got infected. I just got over months of bronchitis that started with alleriges.

If I wasn't in civilization, a protected shelter, running water, had access to antihistamines and anti-infectives and anti-biotics and good food and the leisure time to exercise in a way that suits my disability, then a short life would be expected.

On a philosophical, and yeah, religious level (eek), does our flawed design force us toward technology and scientific discovery? Is evolution not so much about our physical body changes, but advances in science away from religion?

Hmm, this may be stemming from another wandering my brain had earlier today, how many cultural religious based traditions and "laws" were really based on survival protections which were largely based upon available resources in certain climates and geological landscapes.

Now that technology and science gives us food storage, sunscreen, HVAC, etc., we don't need a religious code to maintain survival and comfort. Now, without that, we have evolved to needing secular law to keep a kind of neutrality of rights. Keep your nose out of my business, keep my liberties from infringing on your rights, keep dumb choices of individuals from endangering the public, and so on.

I'm thinking the new evolution is in these areas, and may actually stymie physical evolution. As geeky four eyed unathletic left handed nerds earn the bucks, their gene pool grows and it's brains that become the "fittest" .

Maybe I just need sleep and this is pointless rambling. Delete or discuss. See you guys tomorrow.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 2
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 1:17:38 AM
I'm thinking the new evolution is in these areas, and may actually stymie physical evolution. As geeky four eyed unathletic left handed nerds earn the bucks, their gene pool grows and it's brains that become the "fittest" .

The obvious answer to this
is to leave your brain at home plugged into the computer
Plug another computer into the body and send it out on a run
All gain no pain


Now that technology and science gives us food storage, sunscreen, HVAC, etc., we don't need a religious code to maintain survival and comfort. Now, without that, we have evolved to needing secular law to keep a kind of neutrality of rights. Keep your nose out of my business, keep my liberties from infringing on your rights, keep dumb choices of individuals from endangering the public, and so on.

I see three possibilities
We have this conscious evolution
We blast ourselves to the past
We blast ourselves to oblivion

Long way to go and hopefully a long time to get there

IMO the biggest hurdle to overcome is replacing the authority that comes from the flawed , in god we trust. Which is the basis of most law now
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 3
view profile
History
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 2:34:30 AM

On a philosophical, and yeah, religious level (eek), does our flawed design force us toward technology and scientific discovery? Is evolution not so much about our physical body changes, but advances in science away from religion?

I think you are making a valid point, that human evolution in the future will be driven more by technology than biology.
Or rather, technology will encourage biological changes in the evolutionary sense.

Some day, a colony of humans will live out their lives completly in space, in zero gravity. They will abandon the notion of ever physically returning to Earth. Living entirely in zero gravity will of course cause changes in the human physical body and mark the beginning of whole new branch of human evolution.
Perhaps they could be dubbed, " Homonongravitas " or something like that.
 FyrKrakn
Joined: 2/21/2010
Msg: 4
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 4:19:35 AM
Alright, I have some more middle of the night madness, some religious bashing, I suppose, and this, though I have religion and am a believer by my own definition.

We haven't been able to become modern humans without technology. Clay pots, tools, fire building, these all count as technology. Creating clothing and shelter to handle climate, agriculture, hunting with weapons and traps, cooking, water collection by wells and cisterns and dams, all are technologies that raised us from an animal existence to a human one. Did we have a need of religion prior to a need for understanding how the world functioned? Did we have questions of our existence before and after life when we lived as animals? Chickens and eggs.

It seems to me that if we are designed to perfection, then the flaws, our needs, have a purpose to acquire scientific knowledge and create technology and to live by rational laws. When religious laws run counter and obsolete to other advancements, we are, from this point of view, in disobedience to the designer and our purpose.

It also seems to me that a person who would claim that we are made perfect in God's image and that science is not godly, would have to eschew science and technology and become a nekkid hunter gatherer without tools. Even animals and bugs live according to seasons and use tools to some degree, so I am beginning to think that, back on that religious level, embracing science and technology for the benefit of man and planet, is the most godly purpose that we can have. Then, those who see evolutionists and scientists and god like authority that science, technology and law empower in us as insulting to God, aren't getting the point.

We weren't designed, if we were designed at all, to be helpless, but to help ourselves.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 5
view profile
History
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 5:28:39 AM
This is one of those thoughts that could be thought of from different perspectives.
Does our flawed design force us to invent, or is it that we chanced to be inventive, so our species did better at surviving in more environments than many others?

Also, ironically, the fact that we HAVE managed to overcome so many ecological challenges with technology, also places us AT THE MERCY of that technology.

I find your postulation that technological defeat of the elements, has done more to discourage the 'need' for religion intriguing. I've heard it before, but it bears discussion.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 6
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 5:55:10 AM
I was wondering why our eyes aren't better at keeping crap out of them. Then I wondered at my constantly allergic nasal passages, and throat and skin. I got a stupid wood sliver that nearly instantly got infected. I just got over months of bronchitis that started with alleriges.

I guess it's because (contrary to assertions by people who think man was created in god's image or designed by some designer), the human body has more than a few built in flaws. Check into how vision works. The image on the back of your retina is upside down which then requires a lot of sophisticated processing and adaptation on the part of the brain to interpret as right-side up. The human body may be quite sophisticated, but evolution results in organisms that mostly survive long enough to reproduce, not organisms that are impervious to failure or would be considered well designed. Humans (and other organisms) work well enough to reproduce and survive, but it's hard to image that humans could have been designed, given the flaws in the design.

If I wasn't in civilization, a protected shelter, running water, had access to antihistamines and anti-infectives and anti-biotics and good food and the leisure time to exercise in a way that suits my disability, then a short life would be expected.

Maybe, maybe not. Civilizations provides the mechanism for the spread of diseases - lots of people who live close to each other along with the other animals which might be part of the reproduction cycle of the infectious organism. That's why a quarantine works. If the population was much less densly concentrated, diseases would be spead less easily. The existence of antibiotics is just one example of humans attempting to correct what humans perceive are design flaws. The attempt is just a lot more sophisticated than a bird that builds a nest in an attempt to protect itself and its young.

Now that technology and science gives us food storage, sunscreen, HVAC, etc., we don't need a religious code to maintain survival and comfort. Now, without that, we have evolved to needing secular law to keep a kind of neutrality of rights. Keep your nose out of my business, keep my liberties from infringing on your rights, keep dumb choices of individuals from endangering the public, and so on.

We have laws because people live in such close proximity to each other. Here's an interesting article written by Clarence Darrow. He points out that although Australia was originally colonized by criminals, the fact that they had the land and means to be self sufficient resulted in very little crime, without the need for laws and jails.

I'm thinking the new evolution is in these areas, and may actually stymie physical evolution. As geeky four eyed unathletic left handed nerds earn the bucks, their gene pool grows and it's brains that become the "fittest" .

Humans haven't been around long enough to say whether or not humans are very successful from an evolutionary standpoint. There are a lot of people, but if what society values doesn't contribute t human survival, humans will just be one more flash in the pan. The complexity of the human brain may not be an advantage in the long haul in terms of ``survival of the fittest.'' We have a long way to go before we beat out c0ckroaches as a successful species. The virtues of the human brain are value judgments made human brains.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 7
view profile
History
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 11:14:27 AM

does our flawed design force us toward technology and scientific discovery?

Now, I do have to take some issue with the idea that our human design is " flawed ".
What gives you that idea ?

Every creature which exists on Earth has evolved to fit within a particular environment. Polar bears did not evolve to live in the tropics. Lions did not evolve for living in the Arctic.
Within their specific environment, every animal is as perfectly suited as natural evolution can be. There is nothing " flawed ' about them.

The same is true for humans as well.
We humans evolved with respect to life in a particular environment and our bodies are not " flawed ". The word " flawed " is being judgemental.

The problem you are stating is that we humans have taken up living in environments our bodies are not suited for.
Of course, our technology serves us to make our living environments more suitable to our bodies. A great deal of North America would be uninhabited if we didn't do this. Air conditioning makes cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas possible. Heating makes the northern climates livable.

We don't need to wait around for evolution to adapt our bodies to any environment. Now I do agree that our technology can spur our bodies to evolve in ways that nature never would.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 8
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 1:39:38 PM
Within their specific environment, every animal is as perfectly suited as natural evolution can be. There is nothing " flawed ' about them.

The fact that organisms evolve is precisely why they are flawed. It's evolutionarily more efficient for organs to change and adapt that it is to start from scratch as one would if you were designing something. Human eyes, for example, evolved from more primative eyes so instead of having eyes that were specifically designed for human use, humans have evolved in ways that compensate for the flaws in the eyes from which human eyes evolved. Having a blind spot where the optic nerve attaches is NOT an example of optimal design for a human eye. It's an example of evolution adding little kludges to compensate for he flaws rather than starting from scratch. Organisms are not ``as perfectly suited as natural evolution can be.'' They are merely good enough to get by.

Of course, our technology serves us to make our living environments more suitable to our bodies.

In the short run. Changing our environment to the extent we've changed it may not be good for the long term survival of humans. Nature will always win in the end, regardless of whether or not we're on the winning team.
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 9
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 4:27:45 PM

I just got over months of bronchitis that started with alleriges.

Sorry to hear about your medical problems. I haven't been able to afford health insurance since 2007. I have no idea how I'm going to afford it it it becomes mandatory in 2014. Lie to the IRS, I guess - Veidt Medical, anyone? They sell their policies 35 minutes ago.


Now that technology and science gives us food storage, sunscreen, HVAC, etc., we don't need a religious code to maintain survival and comfort.

We don't? I would say that we need it now more than ever. Technology increases what we CAN do - but what we SHOULD do remains every murky.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 1/4/2011
Msg: 10
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 5:32:47 PM
^^^ I cant afford health insurance nor do I qualify for most policies being disabled.
What will I do on 2014? -Possibly end up in jail- at least then I'd have health care.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 11
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/10/2011 6:01:35 PM
My insurance costs have more than doubled since we were all "saved" by the "health care" bill.................

Well, I have no health insurance and my fiancee's health insurance didn't change at all. When I vote, I won't choose a candidate based on your health care costs going up because you did not take advantage of all that alleged competition in the insurance market.

And people want govt. in charge of health care.................

The insurance companies had years to do better than they are doing. The government can't do worse. The fact is, if the health care situation was satisfactory, the issue would never have come up in congress. If health care is so bad that there are enough people complaining that they are competing with the insurance lobby, there's a problem.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 12
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/11/2011 6:38:35 AM

On a philosophical, and yeah, religious level (eek), does our flawed design force us toward technology and scientific discovery? Is evolution not so much about our physical body changes, but advances in science away from religion?


necessity is the mother of invention.....religion has been around since mankind jumped off the trees.....many scientific advances have been made under the aegis of religion.......ie. Islamic scientific advances during the time of the european dark ages.........in fact, if it wasn't for the due diligence of the "religious" monks (during the dark-ages) at recording and saving much of the know-how of the ancients (that the 'barbarian' secularists were destroying)......i doubt we'd be as advanced as we are now!!!!


Hmm, this may be stemming from another wandering my brain had earlier today, how many cultural religious based traditions and "laws" were really based on survival protections which were largely based upon available resources in certain climates and geological landscapes.


depends on what religion you are talking about........salvation based religions are not based on "survival protection, etc"


Now that technology and science gives us food storage, sunscreen, HVAC, etc., we don't need a religious code to maintain survival and comfort.


your premise is wrong, as one has no relevance to the other.
....................................................................................................


And people want govt. in charge of health care.......


........and who would you prefer to be "in charge" of healthcare instead!...is it the Insurance companies?

 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 13
view profile
History
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/11/2011 11:30:55 AM
It's a common misunderstanding to try to separate different species from the environment they live in.

The subject is really about Ecosystems. That means all the biology of any particular system, plants, animals, right down to bacteria and viruses. All the living creatures within an ecosystem constantly change and evolve with respect to the changing conditions of the system they exist in.

For instance, should a weather pattern change and rainfall become more scarce, the plants in that ecosystem will evolve to adapt to that change. Animals which depend upon that plant for food must be able to eat the changing plants. Those animals will evolve to eat the new plants and become a different type of the old species, or become extinct all together.
If an ecosystem changes faster than any particular species can adapt to biologically, that species will most usually become extinct. A perfect example of this is the Dinosaurs.

Evolution is not like a ladder with species becoming more and more advanced. Evolution is more like a tree, with multiple branches. New branches are constantly forming and old branches constantly dying off.

We humans are able to use our intelligence to circumvent this process. Air conditioning allows us to tolerate environments which we normally wouldn't be able to live in. However, the fact of air conditioning would give rise to humans who are less able to tolerate hot environments than our ancestors. Therefore our technology starts to influence our biological evolution.

But just like the Dinosaurs, should our environment change quicker than we can adapt to biologically or technologically, we probably would become extinct too.
 chrono1985
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 14
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/11/2011 7:30:16 PM
Science and Technology if applied carefully can solve a lot of the problems we are facing. What we have instead is the Science and Technology being develop in a way to facilitate that but being used to exploit others or prevent others from exploiting the ones funding the devices that come about because of it.

Production lines are comprised of machines and computers because they not only do the work better and faster, but are also cheaper to fund compared to equivalent human power. Despite this the price of everything has been driving up way beyond what it was before these machines and computers were introduced into production lines.

Law gets even messier than that. What we have now is a law going into congress over and over again, same thing just slightly different wording each time, that will allow them to remove a website from DNS tables in the US. Now if you happen to know the IP address of the website that doesn't stop you. Just ask China how well this turned out for them, they now have the largest malicious hacking community in the world, with little in the way of new defenses because the security researchers are having trouble finding the websites that document their techniques.

I have a lot of these types of examples, don't think the list really ends. The point however is that it's not Science/Technology or even Law which causes problems, it's the way it's being used.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 15
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/11/2011 8:07:04 PM
@paulK


Are those really the only two options?????


well, now that you've ruled out the doctors, which other options do we have?


The absolute LAST entity involved should be the govt.


oh really?.....let me clue you in about the healthcare plans of our dearly elected politicians......they (and their families) are endowed with the BEST damn insurance plan on the face of the earth (that the tax payer is footing); no limits, no caps, no prior approval screenings............a close 2nd on the list is our very own senior MEDICARE(gov't sponsored) plan, but not the HMO spin-offs...which now includes the part-D component (that pays for a substantial portion of medication costs) that will only get better with the gradual elimination of the so-called "donut-hole" effect..............Then of course, you have the MEDICAID plans which are given to those on public assistence (if they qualify), which includes full medical/surgical; prescription; outpatient therapies, etc.

So unless you happened to be an elected official.....i'd safely say that your insurance (if you have any!) coverage doesn't even come close to that as i've listed above


THEY have proven beyond shadow of a doubt that as time goes by, they are just getting more bloated, more corrupt, more useless and more harmful.


.......Pal, if this is what you honestly believe, then i'd kindly suggest that when you turn 65, you should simply REFUSE to go on Medicare(given how "harmful" it will be).....and leave your benefits in the US treasury for the rest of us seniors to use for ya!...we'll mightily appreciate it of you!



So what happens if you really, really, honest to gosh just can't afford health insurance....... why, you go on the govt. roles.


Wow, what a tragedy that would be, eh!.... ....in your eyes, that would be worse than the repo-man coming over your home to put a lien on your car, home, etc...for not being able to pay your medical bills.


hard to believe is that there are those who think that the new "health care initiative" is a good thing.


i dunno about you, but i'm a tax-payer......and i don't enjoy seeing my money being spent for caring some able bodied dead-beat, who doesn't care to be insured and feels that the "public' should foot the bill for his/her medical care!...taking care of one's health (which also means being insured!) should be everyone's civic responsibility!
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 16
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/12/2011 7:43:25 PM
^

you really think that a time will come when the people who are not elected officials in the federl govt. will have health care as good as the elected officials,


...that would indeed come if WE(the pple) ALL demanded it of them!!!.....which is something we (collectively) haven't even come close to doing..........with the advent of "obama-care", all i've seen was hordes of tea-baggers (and other similar muppets) screaming about how bad obama care is and that it should be repealed....but none that i heard had anything of substance to offer in its place, and as for the politicians (as clever as they are)..they will never offer you what you are not asking for!


I do have insurance, and since howdy doody announced and rammed through his "health care fix", my cost went from $174.00/month to almost $400.00/month


Lemme clue you in on 2 things!.......first of all, who ever is providing you with coverage has successfully FOOLED you into thinking its Obama's fault for passing along (the rise in premiums) onto you, whereas in FACT, this phenomenon has been at play for the past 10 yrs, and employers can no longer deal with it!!!.......premiums have risen roughly 80-90% in the past 9--10 yrs......and now its gotten to the point where employers/unions can no longer shoulder that expense...............secondly, Obama-care has not even been fully implemented... such that it couldn't be blamed for something that has been going on for over a decade!


one of the reasons for this bill was to make it more affordable. And you still trust the politicians?


i'm gonna reserve my judgment until the plan is fully implemented (circa 2014)........if insurance companies are going to be in competition across state lines, then (unlike now) prices are likely to level off, and hopefully drop.


Is it safe to assume that you were sarcastic when you said that? If so, who do you think is paying for those on the GOVT. ROLES???


the tax payers always foot the bill for those on the gov't rolls, with or without Obamacare!.........the difference with Obamacare, is that it will compel the deadbeats (those individuals or entities who have the means/capability of paying their own way...but fail to do so!) to pay into the healthcare system...so the taxpayer doesn't always end up getting the "shaft"!
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 17
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/13/2011 9:26:06 AM
i dunno about you, but i'm a tax-payer......and i don't enjoy seeing my money being spent for caring some able bodied dead-beat, who doesn't care to be insured and feels that the "public' should foot the bill for his/her medical care!...taking care of one's health (which also means being insured!) should be everyone's civic responsibility!


Guess what? You are already doing exactly that and have been for a long time.

If you don't want to pay for ``deadbeats,'' you are out of luck. Your insurance is expensive precisely because your insurance pays the very high prices hospitals charge paying patients to cover those who don't have insurance. Why? I dunno (well actually, I think I do), but if you think about it for while, it might become obvious why insurance companies would prefer having customers who voluntarily pay large premiums over a guaranteed 30 million or more new customers who don't have insurance, but would bitch about high insurance premiums. Health insurance is already socialized, only it's buried under an illusion of capitalism. You can continue to pay for the uninsured through artificially inflated premiums or you can do something else. The recent change in health care is the something else that happened after ignoring the problem and letting the insurance companies run the show, didn't fix the problem.

If you'd like to believe you aren't already paying for (and paying more) for people who are uninsured than you would if some significant changes were imposed on insurance companies, be my guest. Pay more for services than the cash price. Pay for all of those people who go to the emergency room for a cold. Pay for those patients hospitals treat because they didn't have insurance to prevent what the hospital is treating. It's your money and if you're happy to spend it for universal health care the way you're doing it rather than some other way, great. Fight for that privilige. The only reason that health care has become an imprtant issue is because lots of people are unhappy with the way health care has been run by the insurance companies. That has to be a LOT of people to get a politician to pay attention to them over lobbyists.

Personally, I think Obama dropped the ball. Having the option to buy insurance from the government should have been the most important part of the health care bill. As it stands, it's unlikely to change much of anything.


 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 18
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/13/2011 11:11:47 AM

Why would anything change? I believe that the status quo will continue because there are too many financial interests involved.

Well, I don't think anything is going to change either.

And I happen to agree with you, Abelian. We do have socialized medicine, excwpt what is left of the middle class hasn't caught on to that fact. . .

I forgot to mention one additional detail about that. Those who have health insurance through their employers are already being subsidized by the government. Employers are able to take a deduction from the taxes they pay when providing employees with coverage. That deduction is a government handout just as much as any other handout.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 19
The human need for science/technology/law
Posted: 5/13/2011 4:12:50 PM

Your insurance is expensive precisely because your insurance pays the very high prices hospitals charge paying patients to cover those who don't have insurance.


not really!....hospitals do not (over) charge private insurers to compensate for the losses incurred in caring for the uninsured......that cost is (in most cases) picked up from some type of "indigent" fund slated by the state, which gets distributed to the hospitals based on need.....this 'fund' of course comes from various levels of tax-payer revenues.......thus in theory, the more pple you have enrolled in some form of insurance, the less money will be sucked outta this tax-payer's fund (because in this setting, it is in no one's interest to control costs!!!!).

Private insurers have one aim....to meet the corporate profit goal set forth...they look at the bottom line...to satisfy the shareholders(investors), and CEO's.....albeit, the cost of medical care does go up, but certainly not by the same break-neck pace that they raise their premiums, simply because that is how they "hedge" against future losses, and share price fluctuations in the stock-market!

The hospitals (who now try to negotiate en-bloc) with insurance co's...ask for better re-reimbursement, not so much to cover for the losses for caring for the uninsured,....but to maintain the ability to pay nurses, techs, orderlies, etc! the going rates and provide yearly increases in accordance to cost of living adjustments.

Insurance co's... disingenuously claim that they must raise rates in accordance to the "sky-rocketing' cost of medical care!......however, the hospitals are usually "non for profit" facilities, and only ask for increments for the reason stated in my previous paragraph.......Doctors submitting claims for services get very few increases; in fact certain procedures that are billed for...are often devalued on a yearly basis (ie. Colonoscopies would fetch approx $1000 some 15 yrs ago, now can barely get $400).......so you tell me what they are doing with all their revenues!


Health insurance is already socialized, only it's buried under an illusion of capitalism.


only the 'losses' are socialized....the gains (in most cases) are usually privatized...which is why private co's "cherry pick" their(healthiest) members, and those with pre-existing conditions are refused or deselected...and as they get sicker and sicker(and broker), they eventually become the "tax-payer's problem".


If you'd like to believe you aren't already paying for (and paying more) for people who are uninsured than you would if some significant changes were imposed on insurance companies, be my guest.


ideally it would be cheaper for the tax-payers, if the un-insured were enrolled into some for of managed care, by which the gov't would pay a per-capita rate, the same way as those on "public assistence" are now being managed...except that those who are of 'good means' are to be compelled to shoulder the cost (ie carry their own weight), rather than to have the tax-payer pick up the cost through some indigent fund!


Personally, I think Obama dropped the ball. Having the option to buy insurance from the government should have been the most important part of the health care bill. As it stands, it's unlikely to change much of anything.


I fully agree with you here!..the public option would have been pivotal to the success of his reform, but Obama in his naivity did not count on a full frontal assault by the insurance companies in their lobbying efforts to convince(hood-wink) a large segment of an un-astute American public into thinking that there would be rationing, "death" panels (deciding who gets treatments and who doesn't), delay in care and services, etc....In short, Obama lost the propaganda battle that weakened his plan.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The human need for science/technology/law