Talk:Assumption: Difference between revisions
MGxWikiSysop (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 69.59.137.140 (Talk); changed back to last version by Michael) |
(Typo) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'The subjective perception of existence is assumed to be net positive.' is cumbersome. 'Life is good' is too flat. Is there no better definition? | |||
In addition to linking to the definition of civilzation, I think we should mention explicitly that the concept of civilization is reduced to the exchange of information between conscious individuals. --[[User:Michael|Michael]] 10:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
done --[[User:MGxWikiSysop|Sysop]] 05:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
= Earlier comments = | |||
The assumption, that civilisation will continue is not a very prophetic one. Why shouldn’t it? It will continue until it will collapse. It looks like it will collapse some day, nevertheless it may take a while. As we are running to a certain extent this civilisation we seem to approve it. Thus to me it appears that for us two questions arise: | The assumption, that civilisation will continue is not a very prophetic one. Why shouldn’t it? It will continue until it will collapse. It looks like it will collapse some day, nevertheless it may take a while. As we are running to a certain extent this civilisation we seem to approve it. Thus to me it appears that for us two questions arise: | ||
How can we prevent it form collapsing due to our way of living? | How can we prevent it form collapsing due to our way of living? | ||
Latest revision as of 17:32, 14 December 2011
'The subjective perception of existence is assumed to be net positive.' is cumbersome. 'Life is good' is too flat. Is there no better definition?
In addition to linking to the definition of civilzation, I think we should mention explicitly that the concept of civilization is reduced to the exchange of information between conscious individuals. --Michael 10:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
done --Sysop 05:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Earlier comments
The assumption, that civilisation will continue is not a very prophetic one. Why shouldn’t it? It will continue until it will collapse. It looks like it will collapse some day, nevertheless it may take a while. As we are running to a certain extent this civilisation we seem to approve it. Thus to me it appears that for us two questions arise: How can we prevent it form collapsing due to our way of living? Civilisation will change. So which way do we want it to change it in order to improve living conditions and what should can we do to prolong its existence? Or maybe civilisation is endless. Doesn’t seem very probable to me. But for myself it will be endless. So why not assume it?
- The above contribution by 196.12.225.116 on 19:52, 28 September 2008 was originally posted on the Related topics page, proposed to move here shortly afterwards and moved here on 29 December 2008 because it contributes more here.