You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 26
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
It will ruin our ecosystem, yes, that's 100%. But for that, we need to explore other planets. The main thing is to do it faster than we destroy our own. And if we don't develop, sooner or later the planet itself will die and so will the sun. So there's only one way out: evolve. We just need to make less iPhones, weapons, clothes, spinners and other junk and invest more in science and environmental improvements.
If you want to make less iPhones, guns, clothes, spinners and other rubbish and invest more in science and environmental improvement.
It begs the question, why do we need progress? Progress is focused on profits, not on the departure from it.
If you want to make less iPhones, guns, clothes, spinners and other rubbish and invest more in science and environmental improvement.
It begs the question, why do we need progress? Progress is about profits, not about departing from them.
Above profit only honour is the slogan of a developed capitalist society.
Above profits only honour is the slogan of an advanced capitalist society.
I'll be frank. I love technological and cultural progress. I love capitalism. I could not live in a socialist or any other system. But to sacrifice Nature... No. You can't do that.
If you want to make less iPhones, guns, clothes, spinners and other rubbish and invest more in science and environmental improvement.
It begs the question, why do we need progress? Progress is all about profit, not waste.
....
A reputable scientist picks up a piece of paper and says that the surface of the sheet is the plane of the sheet. Then he tells you that the surface of the sheet is a volume, and that what is outside the sheet is NOTHING. Then he tells you that the surface of the sheet is space, which has a volume. That is, ours, the real thing. Next, he takes, bends the leaf, and says, "now the distance from one edge of the leaf to the other edge of the leaf has shrunk. It's called a wormhole." And thanks to it, one day, we'll be able to travel faster in space."
Now tell me, do you agree or disagree with an authoritative scientist? :)
After a pint of cognac, I'll say what I want.
If one considers human life as a piece of paper, then this concept may be true. As a matter of fact, man is a blob of energy and at the end of his existence he transforms into another form of energy and passes unnoticed by all men of science to a new form of energy that spreads throughout the universe. Today we are in the form of the energy which exists on the Earth, and in a little while we will be in the distant cosmos. Life is eternal in energy. There is alien energy in all of us. It takes time to change the state and it is infinite.
And if it is infinite, it is not reasonable to claim that it does not exist.
I cannot believe that there are people in our time who say that time does not exist. I'm honestly ashamed of them.
I'll be honest. I love technological and cultural progress. I love capitalism. Couldn't live in a socialist or any other system. But sacrificing nature... No. You can't do that.
Sorry, you may not like going back to socialism)))
But socialism protected nature and human habitat. Glassware, for example, was required or offered to be surrendered, there was a deposit value included. Bags were made of fast dissolving materials etc. And now you're going to get bogged down in waste from non-degradable materials.
Sorry, you might not like going back to socialism)))
But socialism protected nature and the human environment. Glass bottles, for example, had to be handed in, there was a security deposit included. Bags were made of fast dissolving materials etc. And now you're going to get bogged down in waste from non-degradable materials.
Well, I'd say socialism will protect Nature. In the future. Perhaps. If as a system it strengthens. But whether it has protected it before is a big question. What about nuclear testing? Changing the direction of rivers leading to ecological disasters? What about the slogans that man must "beat" Nature?
Well, I would say that socialism will protect Nature. In the future. Perhaps. If as a system it strengthens. But whether it has protected it before is a big question. What about the nuclear tests?
I understand it was an act to protect its sovereign borders.
It is my understanding that this was an act in defence of their sovereign borders.
Why were the rivers diverted? Why were environmentalists silent?
Well, I would say that socialism will protect Nature. In the future. Perhaps. If as a system it strengthens. But whether it has protected it before is a big question. What about nuclear testing? Changing the direction of rivers leading to ecological disasters? How about the slogans that man must "beat" Nature?
You added a little.
What does man have to "defeat" Nature?
It was meant to fight cataclysms. What were you thinking))))?