[thegreenfairy]

the same technology that launches military planes launches those that deliver hearts for transplants and ppl to agree on peace treaties. the same that delivers food to ppl dying in the desert.

the technology that allows me to talk to you right now came from the pentagon.

science and technology are unbiased - it is the humans which choose how to use them that are the problem. if it was 1000 years age those same humans would be just as bad - just using different tools to acheive what they want.

u can take ur argument a step further and say since a finger pushes the buttons - cut off our fingers.

neither science, technology, nor ur previous subject - thought - are bad in and of themselves. they are not anything - it is how they are used by individuals that is the problem.

there is no easy answear to the problem of a war - because a war is not one problem. every person fighting, starting, or supporting the war has their own reason for doing so - if not many reasons. each persons reasons are all the problems which ammount to a war. there may be some shared reasons - but there is not one cause just as there is not only one effect.

and the reason we can push a button and kill thousands is because that is precisely what somebody wanted to do. it is the desire to do it which is the problem. it is the emotion behind it which has made it dangerous, not the thought.

assuming that an inert peice of metal, a bunch of chemicals, etc is "bad" is just creating a scapegoat. that's like saying it's not my fault somebody died after i pointed a gun and pulled the trigger since it wouldn't have been a problem if nobody had invented a bullet or a gun. that's just me avoiding taking responsibility for my actions. i knew the outcome of my action of shooting - i did it because that's the outcome i desired.

emotion drives everything we do - even an accountant is not emotionless - he/she is there because they desire more money.

the key is the basis of morality - SELF CONTROL. simple to understand, difficult to master. that accountant has a choice - first of all of wether or not to be an accountant - second of what kind of accountant to be. they can work haliburton for big money and play a role in destrying the world - or maybe they can work for a non-for-profit children's hospital for half the pay. the one at haliburton made a choice based on personal greed.

and i completely disagree that human beings have a unique capacity for destruction. everything an animal eats it destroys. have u ever seen a dog begging at a table right after it's been fed? many dogs will eat till they throw up - then eat more - yet we balk at bulumia and roman vomitoriums. if that dog had the ability to eat non-stop - it would undoubtedly harm itself. the only reason ppl in industrialized nations aren't all obese and eating themselves to death is that we have the ability to THINK and realize that although that is what our emotion and instinct tell us to do - things have changed since we were hunter-gatherers and found food at the same rate we needed it.

if it wasn't for our intellect we wouldn't be here - we have no other attribute keeping us alive. we don't have a shell like a turtle - so we build our own shelter - we don't have big teeth or claws like a lion - so we need to invent weapons to hunt, and so on.

if u think progress is evil - u may as well go the way of the suicide bombers because the extinction of humanity is the only end of it's desire to improve and excel.

the terrorist is the real terrorist.