-archimedes-

BMW has already manufactured and produced a hydrogen powered automobile, the BMW H7, saying that the only thing prohibiting mass production is the lack of adaption of the existing fueling infrastructure: http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=16086

The very definition of environmentalism alone, i.e., the advocation or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects (a definition obtained by a perusal of any dictionary), wholly defies and contradicts your definition (which it likewise does by it's very contextual construct), which I find as extremely contrived as it is erroneous, prompting me to question your reasoning and rationale for having made such a statement. Do you require me to provide you with a listing of the species of plant, animal, or even mineral, that no longer exist as a direct result of mankind's manipulation of the environment? You mean "veritable religion" as in, say, "Objectivism"? If "...almost every industry is on board...", wouldn't that alone entail, inherently imply an industry-wide acknowledgement and acceptance of the environmentalists (incorrectly defined) "pernicious ideology"? I would be really interested in your providing me with information that stipulates that "Global Warming" is little more than "dishonest hype"...really, as I'm increasingly finding your claims to border on the absurd the more I read. Yes, the definition of which I'm referencing is: cri·sis 1. A stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point. 2.A condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change. 3. A dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person's life. [Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L < Gk krísis decision, equiv. to kri- var. s. of krnein to decide, separate, judge + -sis -sis] —Synonyms 1. See emergency. Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. I'd like to agree with your contention that it is for man to manipulate his environment in order to better suit his needs, but I find it contradictory to the fact that there would be no "man" to manipulate anything but for the environment out of which he was birthed. To this end, this un-escapble fact of existence, I feel that it is for man to devise ways, methods & or means to co-exist within his environment instead of expecting the environment to merely step aside and do so for him. We need it, it doesn't need us...remember? Oh, and the U.S. government, itself, halted the construction of nuclear power plants because they were determined to be more so harmful than they were beneficial, both to the environment as well as mankind as a whole. Nuclear energy production was demonstrated as being the greater evil as compared to natural gas, oil, or even coal. The REALITY of all things must play a part in one's consideration of what is or is not in order to maintain any degree of rationality.

Perhaps, but the one point that you're overlooking is that man, and his exploitive excesses on those resources, hasn't been around for the majority of those "5 billion years", none but barely a fraction of that time actually, and yet his exploitation of those very same resources has pushed the resultant environmental ramifications of his actions to levels previously achieved only through world-wide cosmic/environmental cataclysmic events...which says quite a lot in and of itself. As such, in the terms of cost analysis, it's not a "...question [of] how much it costs to recycle certain materials or...to dig deeper", it's a matter of requiring that the "cost" required to install and maintain the technology required to eliminate the environmental impacts of industry so that industrial production can continue. We shouldn't have to resort to "statist world government" to accomplish this, merely require industry to invest in the required technology first before they invest in recycling or digging deeper, otherwise, you're advocating that industry forsake the needs of the many (themselves included) in favor of the temporary and fleeting gratification of the one as they, too, will become victimized by their own excesses...a dead Objectivist isn't an Objectivist at all, just another corpse. Environmentalists do not "assume that progress is automatic...", rather, they're working to institute policy that will insure that progress is not halted due to industry depleting/destroying the environment required for said progress and, again, environmentalists are not seeking to halt or constrain industry...only to force them to employ the long existing necessary technology designed to limit/eliminate their impact on the environment from their harmful production byproducts so that they can continue to produce what we all need to progress.

Granted, it is more so a philosophy depicting "duty" unto one's self...is it not? But tell me, is it your opinion that the Objectivists of this planet really could/should care less whether or not the people of this planet continue to survive? Or is it that you feel that Objectivists, alone, should maintain a "laissez faire" attitude in the face of the current environmental situation and just let whatever may come...come, even if it is the demise of the human race? Or, in keeping with the latter, is it that you feel that Objectivists should sit by and let whatever happen happen and take it as it comes even though they may have the opportunity/resources/ability to remedy the outcome? Is there an Objectivist without a people? Does not an Objectionist have a "duty" unto him/herself? Please indulge me as I'm working to get a handle on your perspective of Objectivism as it relates to the Global environment/survival of humanity.

A "typo" on my part with too much time elapsed to allow me the opportunity to "fix" it...apologies. A "typo" on my part with too much time elapsed to allow me the opportunity to "fix" it...apologies...embarrassment mine.

The most telling point is that we knew this going into it, yet have squandered and pilfered our way along through it's endless procurement irregardless of the ecological/environmental repercussions for having done so.

If I may interject, I find your comments somewhat overly dramatized and wholly untrue (or at least out of context) as the object goal has not now, nor ever been, to "...cripple industry [or] technological progress...", in part from the realization that it actually is "...our only means of dealing with a constantly changing environment." Nor is it what the environmental movement "demands", rather, they are only demanding that our industrial enterprises invest in the necessary technological safeguards to prevent/eliminate the pollutant contaminants that are a byproduct of said industry, a request/requisite that has long fallen on deaf ears though the technology has long existed. It is out of this corporate America level disregard for taking the necessary precautions by utilizing the existing technology to insure that our environment isn't needlessly atrophied through misuse, despite the numerous pleas, cries and cultural movements, that has likely lead to what you've termed as the "environmentalist demand" for an end to industry, i.e., the cart before the horse analogy/in legalese, "but for" corporate America's failure to install and utilize the necessary/mandated equipment to prevent an environmental crisis...there would be no crisis. From either side of the coin that this ever unfolding and evolving scenario is viewed, be it the Capitalist's or the Environmentalist's, the one inescapable, unavoidable conclusion is that man is required for man to to survive and capitalize on said survival, and he'll need a sustainable and supportable environment in which to do so. Ah...I see, typo on my part and now too late to fix it...any suggestions?

Personally, I feel that it is the responsibility of every man and woman on this planet, Objectionist or otherwise, to be obligated to play an active part in the continuation of our society, our environment, our species...particularly since all are unavoidably intertwined and interdependent. Speaking purely from an Objectionist point of view, I find mankind's proliferation conducive to the continuation of amassing wealth, be it from a personal or societal point of view. In short, that would be a resounding "YES".

Ah...wishful thinking, an obvious, explicitly inherent term of positive enforcement/outcome is, unfortunately, often referenced in derogatory connotation by the anarchist/pessimist/saboteur. Optimism is the path to innovation and evolution, ergo, a very worthwhile virtue to indulge. We are in agreement.

Yet still no posted credentials denoting your alleged proficiency of knowledge of "...all things nuclear...", whereas I've supplied links to credible sources on the subject matter at hand..., no offense, just lacking support for your, apparently baseless, contentions. Actually, the link read: "5.2 Overview of Delayed Effects 5.2.1 Radioactive Contamination The chief delayed effect is the creation of huge amounts of radioactive material with long lifetimes (half-lifes ranging from days to millennia). The primary source of these products is the debris left from fission reactions. A potentially significant secondary source is neutron capture by non-radioactive isotopes both within the bomb and in the outside environment. When atoms fission they can split in some 40 different ways, producing a mix of about 80 different isotopes. These isotopes vary widely in stability, some our completely stable while others undergo radioactive decay with half-lifes of fractions of a second. The decaying isotopes may themselves form stable or unstable daughter isotopes. The mixture thus quickly becomes even more complex, some 300 different isotopes of 36 elements have been identified in fission products. Short-lived isotopes release their decay energy rapidly, creating intense radiation fields that also decline quickly. Long-lived isotopes release energy over long periods of time, creating radiation that is much less intense but more persistent. Fission products thus initially have a very high level of radiation that declines quickly, but as the intensity of radiation drops, so does the rate of decline. A useful rule-of-thumb is the "rule of sevens". This rule states that for every seven-fold increase in time following a fission detonation (starting at or after 1 hour), the radiation intensity decreases by a factor of 10. Thus after 7 hours, the residual fission radioactivity declines 90%, to one-tenth its level of 1 hour. After 7*7 hours (49 hours, approx. 2 days), the level drops again by 90%. After 7*2 days (2 weeks) it drops a further 90%; and so on for 14 weeks. The rule is accurate to 25% for the first two weeks, and is accurate to a factor of two for the first six months. After 6 months, the rate of decline becomes much more rapid. The rule of sevens corresponds to an approximate t^-1.2 scaling relationship. These radioactive products are most hazardous when they settle to the ground as "fallout". The rate at which fallout settles depends very strongly on the altitude at which the explosion occurs, and to a lesser extent on the size of the explosion. If the explosion is a true air-burst (the fireball does not touch the ground), when the vaporized radioactive products cool enough to condense and solidify, they will do so to form microscopic particles. These particles are mostly lifted high into the atmosphere by the rising fireball, although significant amounts are deposited in the lower atmosphere by mixing that occurs due to convective circulation within the fireball. The larger the explosion, the higher and faster the fallout is lofted, and the smaller the proportion that is deposited in the lower atmosphere. For explosions with yields of 100 kt or less, the fireball does not rise abve the troposphere where precipitation occurs. All of this fallout will thus be brought to the ground by weather processes within months at most (usually much faster). In the megaton range, the fireball rises so high that it enters the stratosphere. The stratosphere is dry, and no weather processes exist there to bring fallout down quickly. Small fallout particles will descend over a period of months or years. Such long-delayed fallout has lost most of its hazard by the time it comes down, and will be distributed on a global scale. As yields increase above 100 kt, progressively more and more of the total fallout is injected into the stratosphere. An explosion closer to the ground (close enough for the fireball to touch) sucks large amounts of dirt into the fireball. The dirt usually does not vaporize, and if it does, there is so much of it that it forms large particles. The radioactive isotopes are deposited on soil particles, which can fall quickly to earth. Fallout is deposited over a time span of minutes to days, creating downwind contamination both nearby and thousands of kilometers away. The most intense radiation is created by nearby fallout, because it is more densely deposited, and because short-lived isotopes haven't decayed yet. Weather conditions can affect this considerably of course. In particular, rainfall can "rain out" fallout to create very intense localized concentrations. Both external exposure to penetrating radiation, and internal exposure (ingestion of radioactive material) pose serious health risks. Explosions close to the ground that do not touch it can still generate substantial hazards immediately below the burst point by neutron-activation. Neutrons absorbed by the soil can generate considerable radiation for several hours. The megaton class weapons that were developed in the US and USSR during the fifties and sixties have been largely retired, being replaced with much smaller yield warheads. The yield of a modern strategic warhead is, with few exceptions, now typically in the range of 200-750 kt. Recent work with sophisticated climate models has shown that this reduction in yield results in a much larger proportion of the fallout being deposited in the lower atmosphere, and a much faster and more intense deposition of fallout than had been assumed in studies made during the sixties and seventies. The reduction in aggregate strategic arsenal yield that occurred when high yield weapons were retired in favor of more numerous lower yield weapons has actually increased the fallout risk. 5.2.2 Effects on the Atmosphere and Climate Although not as directly deadly as fallout, other environmental effects can be quite harmful. 5.2.2.1 Harm to the Ozone Layer The high temperatures of the nuclear fireball, followed by rapid expansion and cooling, cause large amounts of nitrogen oxides to form from the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (very similar to what happens in combustion engines). Each megaton of yield will produce some 5000 tons of nitrogen oxides. The rising fireball of a high kiloton or megaton range warhead will carry these nitric oxides well up into the stratosphere, where they can reach the ozone layer. A series of large atmospheric explosions could significantly deplete the ozone layer. The high yield tests in the fifties and sixties probably did cause significant depletion, but the ozone measurements made at the time were too limited to pick up the expected changes out of natural variations. 5.2.2.2 Nuclear Winter The famous TTAPS (Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, and Sagan) proposal regarding a potential "nuclear winter" is another possible occurrence. This effect is caused by the absorption of sunlight when large amounts of soot are injected into the atmosphere by the widespread burning of cities and petroleum stocks destroyed in a nuclear attack. Similar events have been observed naturally when large volcanic eruptions have injected large amounts of dust into the atmosphere. The Tambora eruption of 1815 (the largest volcanic eruption in recent history) was followed by "the year without summer" in 1816, the coldest year in the last few centuries. Soot is far more efficient in absorbing light than volcanic dust, and soot particles are small and hydrophobic and thus tend not to settle or wash out as easily. Although the initial TTAPS study was met with significant skepticism and criticism, later and more sophisticated work by researchers around the world have confirmed it in all essential details. These studies predict that the amount of soot that would be produced by burning most of the major cities in the US and USSR would severly disrupt climate on a world-wide basis. The major effect would be a rapid and drastic reduction in global temperature, especially over land. All recent studies indicate that if large scale nucelar attack occur against urban or petrochemical targets, average temperature reductions of at least 10 degrees C would occur lasting many months. This level of cooling far exceeds any that has been observed in recorded history, and is comparable to that of a full scale ice age. In areas downwind from attack sites, the cooling can reach 35 degrees C. It is probable that no large scale temperature excursion of this size has occurred in 65 million years. Smaller attacks would create reduced effects of course. But it has been pointed out that most of the world's food crops are subtropical plants that would have dramatic drops in productivity if an average temperature drop of even one degree were to occur for even a short time during the growing season. Since the world maintains a stored food supply equal to only a few months of consumption, a war during the Northern Hemisphere spring or summer could still cause deadly starvation around the globe from this effect alone even if it only produced a mild 'nuclear autumn'." >>>http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html<<< By the way, while the article made but passing reference ("...other environmental effects can be quite harmful...") to lasting environmental concerns, I can provide you with information from authoritative sources on the effects of, say, water contamination due to radioactive runoff, if you'd like to pursue this line of irrationality on your part further..."?"

No...you obviously still know not what you speak of. Perhaps it is because you "...read all of [my] posts..." from your perspective instead of my own/mine, as you should have? I mean, if it really was your intent to understand the rationale of my contentions/commentary. I, again, encourage you to resist the primordial (or what have you) urge to attack me/my rationale/reasoning personally and, instead, "focus" on the subject matter at hand and on it alone.

Alas...at least the women here seem to understand me (I extend to you my appreciation, Sophia ), while the men seem to be involved in a collective effort intent on either belittling my intellect, or callously imposing their own wills/self-centric rationale (a persuasion I've encountered on numerous occasions) on my (evolved"?") perspective of Objectivism/Capitalism. You people need to learn to think beyond yourselves, overcome your self-imposed myopia and gain an overall world perspective, in order to actually obtain a true perspective with which to formulate a method of ideological application...go out (beyond yourselves), turn around, and look back in instead of sitting there on the inside of your little worlds looking out. Simply put, you help yourself, the individual, by helping the people/many. p.s. As an aside, a note of levity if you will allow me, a lot of what I see here is reminiscent of the mentality I've observed depicted by the fictional extraterrestrial race in the "Star Trek" universe, from the series "Deep Space Nine", known as the Ferengi (was studying examples of cultural/economic perspective diversities as part of the socio-economic studies).

So, what say you then to the individuals who progressed the welfare of mankind as a whole with their individual invent[ions], discover[ies] or technological advance of Rand's passage: "America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."...Hmm? I find your apparent/self-defined rationale here somewhat confusing as I'm working to determine if this is merely an attempt on your behalf to be facetious, or if you actually are as self-centric as you've presented yourself to be, i.e., to the point that you've sequestered your world view to the constraints of your immediate environment/needs, rendering yourself so myopic in the de-evolutionary process as a result thereof to fail to realize/understand that all of "mankind as a whole" scientific, technological, economic, sociological, etc., etc., progress is, has, and will always be but the corollary byproduct of but a few individuals (who've, perhaps, devised ancillary inventions even themselves derived from/based on the evolutionary innovations of but one individual"?") "pursu[ing] their own personal interests" (Rand)?!? Granted...of mice and men, of mice and men*. (*see previous post) The people of Germany were largely unaware of Hitler's madness, which didn't happen to reveal itself until later in his term in office. Oh and Hitler was not extremely popular until after he came to power, he had less than a majority and united with his natural conservative allies and formed a coalition. His popularity grew when his foreign policy became successful, the depression began (as much of its own doing as anything else) to decline and opposing political opinion was suppressed. So bad choice for a supportive reference on your part. Hence the reason for the lack of resistance/their continued existence. I hope that you're able to realize the inherent contradictions of your contention on your own without my having to go into defining them any further. Yes, of course...did you not read what I had posted? Though said "aid" should be limited to only those incidences involving anarchistic/terroristic extremists bent on overthrowing a current humanitarian rulership/those wherein our country's continued interests would be compromised. Otherwise, I feel that it is in the best interests of all developing nations/peoples to do so on their own, free of outside influence that could potentially derail that peoples sociological evolutionary cycle and while, yes, I understand that, on the surface, this may seem a bit contradictory...but you'll need to have the capacity to dig a little deeper than the erroneously perceived superficiality of my statement. Perhaps you should, based on our exchange herein this thread, concentrate more so on addressing the topic at hand solely rather than dividing your attention in an attempt to define what you shallowly interpret as being my perspective on Objectivism to launch a personal attack...I'm sure that there are rules against such behavior on this forum, and anyway, you seem to have your hands full enough already.

True, very true as "the best laid plans of mice and men, often go awry" (A passage in a poem penned by Robert Burns, entitled "To A Mouse", and later epitomized in the novel by John Steinbeck, "Of Mice and Men") but...it doesn't hurt one to hold out hope/proceed in one's life working to achieve such an outcome, now does it?!

Or so certain paranoid interests would prefer that the general public believe.... You see, nuclear weapons are the most destructive technology ever developed. From the day fission was discovered in 1938, the problem of controlling this technology has been of central importance to the human race. The world in which this discovery was made - convulsed by war, paranoia, and totalitarian cruelty - made the translation of theoretical possibility into actuality inevitable. The world has been fortunate in the extreme that their only role so far has been to close the worst chapter in the history of war, instead of opening a new one. Care to relay your credentials? Well, actually...nuclear explosions produce both immediate and delayed destructive effects. Immediate effects (blast, thermal radiation, prompt ionizing radiation) are produced and cause significant destruction within seconds or minutes of a nuclear detonation. The delayed effects (radioactive fallout and other possible environmental effects) inflict damage over an extended period ranging from hours to centuries, and can cause adverse effects in locations very distant from the site of the detonation. The topic of nuclear weaponry/power generation is complex and technical: steeped in physics, mathematics, and esoteric engineering. Born in war, the subject has been highly classified from the beginning making it even more inaccessible. Yet this complexity and secrecy has not prevented their acquisition by any nation with an industrial infrastructure advanced enough to build them, and a matching desire. The obstacle to would-be members to the nuclear club has not been discovering how they work, but simply obtaining the tools and materials to make them...an obstacle that Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has found a means of circumventing by exploiting his countries oil reserves by promising rights of use to other developing countries in exchange for nuclear technology and materials, though the U.S. is doing what is possible at the moment to discourage such endeavors (remember the whole "cutting off of the snake's head" bit earlier?) US Senators Urge Sanctions Against Iran Over Nuclear Program ... to stem Iran's development of nuclear capabilities. ; US sanctions threat to foreign companies doing business with Iran nuclear agency... ; Iran’s Nuclear Development: UN Security Council to Discuss Additional Sanctions ... Council Adopts Sanctions Resolution Against Iran over ...Japan supports sanctions... . Informed public input into these questions is important in a democracy. Yet the complexity of the topic and the deliberate manipulation of information through secrecy laws has left the public, even the technically trained public, largely ignorant and misinformed. A firm grasp of the basics, and ready access to information is essential to successfully influencing government policy. So it is that I offer unto you for your education/advisement/wisdom the lengthy works of one Carey Sublette and others that contributed no doubt countless hours and drudgery to this very informative site (which I strongly encourage you to read for your own benefit and enlightenment): Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions: Section 5.0-Effects of Nuclear Explosions .

Inasmuch as the posters here seemed to be/were emphasizing the use of a low altitude nuclear detonation (as opposed to a ground level detonation...like it really mattered either way) as a more so "safe" method of nuclear usage, I worked to orient my input focused on the environmental side-effects foremost, then provide information detailing the overall effects of nuclear weaponry usage. Ergo, the specific section of the document(s) in question, which I clearly cited ("Alterations of the Global Environment", sub-parag. "B"), is as follows: [Removed enormous amount quoted material from links] And then, instead of posting the entire report constructed by the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications for the National Research Council, I'll provide you with a direct link to the page that I also specified in my previous post, i.e., (EFFECTS OF EMISSIONS: Ozone Shield Reduction) http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=540&page=112 So, what it is that I believe (giving you the benefit of the doubt) you took from whatever of the links I posted that you actually read were accounts of the "magnitude" of the harmful initial & lingering effects of our previous use of nuclear weaponry, both for the people directly affected, as well as the lasting environmental effects which, by the way, affects all of us even to today, hence the image of the rather much LARGER Ozone hole that was depicted in the "religious, vegetarian, environmentalism web site" (your words) that I initially posted (I can provide you with a link to an identical image directly from NASA if you'd prefer). Oh, and: American Heritage Dictionary em·bat·tled (ěm-bāt'ld) adj. 1. Beset with attackers, criticism, or controversy: an embattled legislative minority. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.(Emphasis their own) As I covered above, I did "...highlight[] the information that...supports [my] argument...", by directing the viewer to the sections of the web sites that "...supports what [i'm] saying" with the very links themselves...Thank you for the advice though, I'll endeavor to be that much more so clear with future posts. All in all, besides the peripheral concern of fending off attacks on the credibility of the referenced links I've posted in support of my position, the actual object of my efforts here are not to attack anyone, rather to inform those that are not so so that they will know to save them possible future confusion/misunderstanding, which I hope I have accomplished. Edited by RationalBiker for the following;

How about these: (Note 5) , (Sec. 5.4, subsec. 5.4.1, & Sec. 5.2, subsec. 5.2.2.1) , (overview of the physical effects, initial, subsequent and lasting) , (Paragraph "Alterations of the Global Environment", sub-parag. "B") , or even (An entire paper written by the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications...page 112- specifically addresses the effects on the ozone layer) . Are they more suited to what you'd be inclined to consider as reputable sources? p.s. I've got more.

Make that Russia, China & India, that have all lately buddied up to Iran. But in the midst of our mutually expressed hatred for the Iranian government, let us not overlook the reason for them jumping into bed with one another (figuratively speaking), i.e., the pre-perceived oil shortage given the increased demand by the previously mentioned countries due to their population expansion. Albeit, Iran has taken advantage of their position in this situation to wrangle technological information, materials, and whatever readily obtainable associative componentry for nuclear power production/technology in exchange for shared rights to their oil fields, but does this excuse the named countries of their obvious ("?") oversight is the question that we should really be asking. Taking all of this into consideration when pondering the question of whether or not American action against Iran for their nuclear materials development efforts would lead to a potential 3rd. world war, well...leaves one with much to contemplate but...I know that we DO NOT WANT TO GO THERE for any number of reasons. And for those of you advocating nuking Iran, even an air burst/"above ground" nuclear event while disclaiming the likelihood of widespread nuclear fallout, you need to understand the impact that any nuclear explosion has on our already embattled Ozone layer....http://www.paradisian.net/Nuclear%20Effects.htm/, because you obviously don't.

Nor does it "prove" otherwise, but does not it's characteristic "order" intuit some level/form of design if by no other means than it's "structure" alone? Also, is not "design" but a synonym for "order", and vice-versa? It took intelligence on someone's part to devise the mechanics of the sorter, yes? If for no other reason than so that the sorter could be devoid of intelligence (hired labor) and still perform it's job? True, very true as it is becoming more and more so now that we are able to perceive order even out of the unlikeliness of chaos.

Alright then, apologies all around as the intent of my post was not to convey an overall misunderstanding of the poster's (who is strangely absent from this rebuttal on his position) position inclusive of all of the members here, only my own. It, likewise, also wasn't my intent to "smuggle" any other meaning, connotation, interpretation, etc., etc., of the word "purpose" into a "package deal" statement other than the strictly literal definition commonly associated with the word in the context in which I have used it as it is not my intent here to mince words with anyone on this (I'm learning) quite literal forum, especially not with a forum's Moderator. But...one could easily conclude that everything in this life does have/serve an undeniable/unavoidable purpose...if you, too, have recently found this as inherently obvious as I do, despite whatever doctrine you may prescribe to, perhaps it's time that you revisited those precepts"?" By way of further explanation (to use your example), of the various components of our bodies that make up/contribute to the human hearts' functionality, do you see anyone of which we could do without yet still enjoy the same level of performance/continue living in it's absence? Then, if not, would that observation alone not intuit a specific purpose for each component in and of itself...or would it? Regardless, I am not attempting to "argue" with anyone, only provide constructive, intelligent input on this or that topic in any given discussion from my own perspective/understanding of the world as I relate to it (and as it relates to me) as I'm given to the understanding that the intellectual considers it a necessary preoccupation to look at all sides of a topic under discussion in order to draw the most informed of conclusions...to do otherwise is to cheat oneself of attaining a fuller world/life view...IMHO.

Yeah, I'm not getting the whole "scary quotes" contention myself...if you're quoting someone, you're quoting them, and the long approved and practiced literary method of doing so is with the use of quotation (hence the derivative term quote) marks ("*"). Anyway, I agree with you're position that it is a "self-assumed inconvenience", albeit one that is self-imposed, as I'm aware that the human body, as a matter of routine/part of a built-in failsafe mechanism, sends any number of definitive signals when a part of it is ailing prior to it's actually failing the owner...it is but for the person to decide, to chose, to treat the symptoms before they escalate to an incapacitating level, i.e., if there's a hole in your foot, it didn't just magically appear one day, it is there because you shot yourself in it. Hmm...that all would seem to be even more so supportive of the I.D. contention, wouldn't it?! I mean, not only is there a system for hearing/balance, there is also a failsafe sub-system in place that, if one were to merely troubleshoot it (much like the running of diagnostics on an automobile), would readily resolve the issue (ailment) before it managed to escalate to a self-unmanageable level...genius I tell you, genius.

You know, I do believe that I am misunderstanding you as it appears that the actual intent of your inquiries, as opposed to any medical inquisitiveness, is to devise some off-handed way of constructing an argument against the "intelligent design" concept/feel me out on my position on the matter...a topic of another thread here. Suffice it to say that, right or wrong, it is my understanding that things are the way that they are for a purpose and there is an underlying, scientifically demonstrable and proven, inherent design to all that exists in this world. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning for this line of questioning to save us all the confusion prompted by misunderstanding? I thought that the information I provided detailed how the two are intrinsic to one another's operation"?" Ancillary components/parts of the whole that contribute equally to one another's benefit? Following this rationale, it's not at all that hard to conclude that a shared reservoir was the most economical choice, as well as the best method of applying the concept of avoiding the duplication of effort, from a purely physiological perspective. The intelligence of the design seems pretty obvious to me in it's efficiency alone in that there's no duplication of effort, not to mention that the addition of aural input, in combination with the three planes of balance perception (up-down, left-right & tilt), lends a fourth dimension to the overall sensory interpretation of the organ, thereby constructing a complete sensory composite (in four(4) dimensions)- of our world and our surroundings at any given moment. Very ingenious indeed that an organ so minute can accomplish so much for it's rather diminutive size and it's position in the dense depths of our craniums...it's a very impressive accomplishment when you think about it.

I cannot believe, in this age of intellectual, scientific and common sense awareness, that anyone would advocate the use of nuclear armament, knowing that everyone, all around the world, would suffer the consequences, if but from the atomic fallout alone.

I apologize for anything on my part that caused you to misconstrue the intent/meaning of my earlier comments (I often run into this problem when I attempt to convey an idea, perception or concept of my own to another), I now understand what you meant by the fascism remark, though I thought that I covered/explained my position in my earlier reply to Marc K.? Perhaps my comment to him would serve you as well: Well, to clarify here, I do not believe that the people of any country "chose" to elect a dictator. The very definition of the term alone negates even an implied consent on the behalf of the people of this or that country for that person's succession to office as their (a dictator's) mentality is to merely take what they chose via the subjugation of that country's people, often through the application of deadly force. Agreed, and I believe that it is the policy of America to allow other countries to work out their own inter-personal/governmental issues without our intervention, i.e., unless that country requests aid, anarchistic parties of that country interferes with our relationship or dealings with that or another country, or airs their dirty laundry on our shores...live and let live.

Well, politicians for one...I mean, do any of us really believe that but a handful of people can accurately convey the needs and desires of billions of people, let alone the thousands to millions of their own constituents? Or is it that the conventional constitutional provision for such office, while most beneficial at the time, has now become outmoded with the explosive population increase of modern day to the point that what we now have is a system in place that makes it easier for certain interest groups to sway the opinion/vote of an individual with bribery, extortion, blackmail, sexual favor, etc., etc. (all from the headlines), whereas such would not be so easily accomplished with the people? But that's more so of a political nature and this isn't the political forum. Truth is, the more I think about it, the more that I could come up with that could readily be deemed as "B.S. in the world" that would likely lead to a very lengthy, exhaustive discussion touching on a variety of aspects of what all makes up our world and the processes/methodologies/dictum's, etc., by which it is governed, but for now (with the exception of the slight blurb above) I'll keep my comments within the context of the current topic of discussion, i.e., "terrorism", and will say that I find it B.S. that individuals engage in such inevitably fatalistic pursuits. After all, just what was that bin Laden hoping to accomplish anyway? I mean, other than the permanent vilification of the Iraqi people, the disruption of finances into his country, the embargo of international trade with his country, the destruction of infrastructure and commodities distribution and services for his people, the decimation of his country men/women/children as collateral casualties of the war that his "idealism" &/or actions started? Just what was/is his goal?! He seems upset by our (America's) capitalism, yet it is our country that has brought wealth, prosperity and an actual economy to his financially withering country with the establishment of the oil trade, a commodity that they didn't even know they had. Is the guy such a purist that he's unable to grasp the boon that such trade has been for his country? I think not as he comes from money/his family is in the oil/trade business...perhaps he is merely a hand-biting hypocrite? Then, perhaps it is that I simply do not understand terrorism...? We then turn to our (America's) handling of the war...evidence shows that we knew, well in advance, of what was going to go down, even how it was going to go down, so why did almost 3,000 people (2,948) have to die? Why are our troops over there still having to die? And then, why is it that we are still unable to catch this guy? I know that we have the technology and resources to do it...perhaps it is that his money shields him much the same way as we've seen numerous other millionaire and billionaire's (albeit even those of political office) monies shield them from persecution for their offenses?!? I call all of this "B.S." Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but I am at least honest enough with myself to pose the question: perhaps it is the the only B.S. with this world is that I do not have the answers to the questions that I ask...care to enlighten me? Help everyone to attain a higher level of awareness of the issues that surround them and their lives and to encourage in them a more active participation in what all shapes and controls their world(s), even if it be little more than to whisper into the ear of the authorities the location of the terrorists as their decimation is as beneficial to the one as it is to the many. Yes, I foresee widespread, societal capitalism in one form or another wherein all would have a stake in the benefit of the one, and vice-versa...why not?