(I'm resubmitting this post. I had edits that I had wanted to
include, and I've had trouble posting today because of difficulties
with my newsgroup service. I'll apologize now for any inconvenience.)

I had a young engineer approach me a few years ago while I was taking
Pro/Engineer training and asked me what I thought of global warming. I
was training on the swing shift, and the second shift guys spent a lot
of time discussing current events. I told the young man that I was
all for it (global warming that is). It wasn't quite the answer he
was expecting. The young engineer practically went apoplectic. "Well,
what about the children?" he remonstrated, his voice becoming shrill.
I told him that I thought the children would enjoy the change as well.
Another engineer nearby laughed upon overhearing the conversation and
the young man harumphed and marched off.

There are a few things about the entire conversation on global warming
that have puzzled me for some time. It's my opinion, and I believe it
be based on good information, that the people that most invest in the
"fact" of global warming likewise have purchased the "fact" of
evolution. And in my various discussions with these particular folks,
evolution, as a doctrine, a theory, and a "fact," is nothing more than
change. It explains and defines the vagaries of nature that have
resulted in life as it is now. There is no purpose, and there is no
empyrean force directing it. It is simply change, and people should
learn to accept that. Likewise, these same folks generally have
adopted the idea that there is no hope of an afterlife. Death is an
inevitability that simply must be accepted, and to try to find some
way to escape it, through the construct of superstition or otherwise,
is unadulterated foolishness. People should just accept that there is
a finality to life and nothing follows.

To me, it's an odd thing that these same persons that share these
views would sound such a vociferous alarm about the global warming,
that global issue of concern that is based on a possible fiction. If
global warming or "climate change" is a fact, then I have no problem
with accepting that fact. But the verdict is still out. There are
many qualified experts that haven't subscribed to global warming as
being a factual dynamic, or at least as a threat of any substantial
magnitude. Even still, if evolution stands as an accurate model, why
resist change? It's simply change and a reasonable person should
simply accept change. And if the human race should come to
extinction, what is the harm? In fact, isn't that a palatable and
just solution to the whole affair? If man is such a threat to nature
and the physical world by virtue of his own folly, wouldn't nature be
better off with his extinction? And if life offers no real hope for
better things, since any notion of better things suggest that man
experentially has an appreciation that life has better things to
offer, why would anyone resist a simple change in the physical world,
even if that change could potentially eradicate the human race, as
pitiable as it is. Nature and the world will simply renew! It has in
the past. (In referring to a "notion of better things," in terms of
having a hope in a utopian ideal, society, or life-after-death, a
difficulty arises in determining why anyone would ponder such things.
How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access