2,802
03-24-2024, 03:46 PM
This post was last modified 03-24-2024, 03:47 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: formatting
Kenzo
I am not arguing against the idea that modern humans have been living in a world saturated by energetic signals and constant exposure to whatever our technology has brought along with it. I am also not refuting that research has confirmed that it 'could' (not necessarily 'does') affect life-processes.
Perhaps the robust nature of our physical bodies makes us fail to notice the effects... and that perspective of "until its' too late" is universal to many things other than, and beyond technological "energy pollution."
I applaud the investigation; I don't applaud "the sky is falling" marketing. The biggest proponents of this alarm all have something to sell... that reduces my confidence in what they say.
I am aware that I could be very wrong about the immediateness of the threat. And I know that eliminating the technology is never going to be casually accepted without extraordinarily compelling evidence... Evidence that doesn't acquiesce to big commerce by forcing words like "might cause" and "has been shown in lab studies."
I would like, at least, some evidentiary weight (not based on 'theoretical outcomes') to the assertion that using it is self-destructive.
But enough off-topic for me... I apologize to the thread author. Kenzo, maybe you should start a thread on this topic (just a thought)
I am not arguing against the idea that modern humans have been living in a world saturated by energetic signals and constant exposure to whatever our technology has brought along with it. I am also not refuting that research has confirmed that it 'could' (not necessarily 'does') affect life-processes.
Perhaps the robust nature of our physical bodies makes us fail to notice the effects... and that perspective of "until its' too late" is universal to many things other than, and beyond technological "energy pollution."
I applaud the investigation; I don't applaud "the sky is falling" marketing. The biggest proponents of this alarm all have something to sell... that reduces my confidence in what they say.
I am aware that I could be very wrong about the immediateness of the threat. And I know that eliminating the technology is never going to be casually accepted without extraordinarily compelling evidence... Evidence that doesn't acquiesce to big commerce by forcing words like "might cause" and "has been shown in lab studies."
I would like, at least, some evidentiary weight (not based on 'theoretical outcomes') to the assertion that using it is self-destructive.
But enough off-topic for me... I apologize to the thread author. Kenzo, maybe you should start a thread on this topic (just a thought)
