Don't "That's just correlation" me. Do you think humans arriving in these locations and the animals going extinct had some external, shared cause? If not, then the correlation implies causation. And the mechanisms are many and obvious -- hunting, land use changes by humans, competition for prey with humans, etc.

Cite your claim that humans didn't have enough population density. I don't believe that. Humans expanded very rapidly in new worlds (1000 years = 40 generations, even a small growth rate would lead to saturation over one millennium. From crossing the ice bridge in Alaska humans managed to saturate both continents surprisingly quickly according to Jared Diamond).

And read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna
"Some proponents claim climate change alone caused extinction of the megafauna, but these arguments have to account for the fact that megaufaunal species comfortably survived two million years of climatic oscillations, including a number of arid glacial periods, before their sudden extinction. New evidence based on accurate optically stimulated luminescence and Uranium-thorium dating of megafaunal remains suggests that humans were the ultimate cause of the extinction of megafauna in Australia.[3] The dates derived show that all forms of megafauna became extinct in the same rapid timeframe — approximately 47,000 years ago — the period of time in which humans first arrived in Australia."

Wow! Musical Youth has updated their sound for the new millennium!

You are not "most" people. Don't pretend to speak for us. You are not in the majority. Xenophobia is so last millennium.

In reply to this comment by Pprt:
>> ^Farhad2000:
There are many stupid ignorant and bigoted so called 'Islamic' commentators in the Arab world. But this is not a view shared by the populace as a whole. Just an hour ago I was at the Sultan Center (think Wallmarts) and it was choke full of roses, sweets, lingerie and other Valentines bullshit.
These idiots just open their mouth and spew stupid shit all the time, MEMRI TV grabs one idiot and then extrapolates it to mean that he is speaking for the entire Arab and Islamic world. LOOK HOW CRAZY THOSE MUSLIM ARABS ARE!


Most people don't think about or care much for the Muslim world, Farhad.

But when people like this choose to immigrate to western countries and perpetuate their backwardness with governmental protection and support, we've got ourselves a serious problem.

>> ^spoco2:
Really, Anime fricken leaves me so cold. People wax on and on and on and on about how it's so damn superior to western animation, but really, so much of it is lazy (a LOT has an awful lot of static image in the frame with barely a mouth moving), outlets for the repression of the Japanese culture.


Really you made that entire conclusion from watching a short segment of the entire film and what you saw on Nickelodeon?

The entire film is centered around animals fighting mans encroaching development on their forest, packaged in this cute way that sometimes borders on the ridiculous for western viewers but is actually highly relevant to Japanese folklore and mythology.

How you watched anime films like Grave of the Fireflies? Perfect Blue? Millennium Actress?

I don't think you explored enough in the genre to make such a statement, its like saying all Hollywood films suck because they are all centered around violence and sex.

>> ^Raaagh:
Ugh freaking eck.
one question, it doesnt biodegrade? okay, and it breaks up into little pieces? got it. Which hang around for decades? fine.
But then what happens after the decades?
Do they turn into those sea people or what?


I don't know why they said it like that, maybe because the plastic molecules stay around for so long, but a typical plastic bottle a little less than half a millennium to biodegrade.

Why does this question assume that "mattering" mean "mattering in all times and places"?

The fact that the apple I am eating is ripe matters right now, and, since it will not make me sick, for the next couple of days, then it will not matter.

Even if you lived "forever" things would matter for a while, and then stop. Why would millennium old events necessarily matter just because the person who experienced them is still alive?

When I was a small child many things mattered, I needed to eat, to sleep, I needed affection and education. I don't remember most of that, so for all intense and purposes most of it did not happen to anybody conscious right now, and does not matter any more, even though I am still alive.

I suppose I fail to see a distinction in meaning or purpose when "eternity" gets thrown in the mix. Living longer, even "for eternity" does not seem to add, or prolong meaning.

From Wikipedia:

"In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."

Uhuh. This I would like to see.

But as a warm up, why doesn't he tackle the Millenium Problems. He could earn a quick $6 million dollars . . . but perhaps this would divert his attention from his Intelligent Design research . . . hmmm.

And the award for the most shockingly unexpected comment of the last millennium goes to:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You know what would change that stern attitude? Smoking pot.
I'll keep (occasionally) smoking marijuana until it's legal, then celebrate by smoking it some more.


There might just be hope for you yet.

"sanctity of life" needs some deconstruction.

As already mentioned sanctity has problems in being theistic (therefor not amenable to verification), so I'm going to go with value, which exposes one of the fundamental flaws in the question at hand, since value is by it's vary nature subjective, the question needs to be phrased "value of life to you|me|john|The Pope|etc". We have no obvious need to agree, just as with anything value is not transitive, I don't need to base my valuation on yours, and vice versa, you may feel that a bucket of fried chicken is worth $10, while I, being vegan, value it at $0(or less).

The more absurd issue is "life". Before the last millennium humanity seemed to have a pretty solid grasp of what constituted life and none life, people from all over the world could agree on general categories to some extent, their mythology around this was different, but we understood that a lion is not like a rock in some meaningful way.

The problem is that the way we tended to make this distinction , as "life force" is demonstrably wrong, life is not magic, it's chemistry. The knowledge of this fact is extremely new in the course of human history, and we have certainly not integrated this fact into our general cultural context or language, and so part of the problem is that our language, our tool for making and analyzing distinctions, is fundamentally flawed in this regard, and so should be expected to be wrong.

"life" is not a thing or an attribute, it is an arbitrary categorization which we use in an attempt to save our old, cherished, incorrect notion from being discarded.The category life basically comes down to something along the lines of:

"that which we value more than a rock"

Of course this could be "life" in the standard bible-belt sense of "Christian life", or more magnanimously "human life", but neither of these get us a clearer picture. How much "living stuff" which is "human" does it take to get human life? Skin cells, a kidney, a decapitated body on life support, a brain on life support, a group of cell which have the "potential" to become a living breathing adult human? How many "humans" are in a zygote? What if it splits into twins/sextuplets?

And in the end the question is what "should" be the value, so if we put it all back together we get:

What should be the value, to all entities, of an non-clearly defined category of objects of which all the entities seem to be members?

You can tweak the clarifications on that question to make ANY conclusion follow, but their is NO BASIS on which to tweak the clarifications to begin with.

All answers are bound to be meaningless and unsatisfying, because the question is meaningless and unsatisfying.

Societies decide in subtle and organic ways what is valuable and what is unacceptable, and it's a good thing™. I much prefer our current society to euro-diaspora society 100, or even 50 years ago.

>> ^MINK:
The Retardation Police are working extra shifts on this thread.
Fuck nationality and everything connected with that (i.e. arms deals, bogus sporting contests between genetic freaks, etc.)
Nationalism should fuck off back to the previous millennium where it belongs.


If I'm forced to pick between the two (arms deals or athletic competition) I think I'll stick with the latter. Part of the genius of the Olympics is that it takes those nationalist feelings, which for all your proclamations are part of this century as well, and channels them into cheering for your fellow countrymen in good spirited competition. You can have that expression of nationalism, or you can say that war and xenophobic backlash is a better expression of such sentiments. I, personally, know which way I lean.

The Retardation Police are working extra shifts on this thread.

Fuck nationality and everything connected with that (i.e. arms deals, bogus sporting contests between genetic freaks, etc.)

Nationalism should fuck off back to the previous millennium where it belongs.

Yes....I was thinking the Quiet Earth while reading these suggestions.....

Zardoz B+ (Sean Connery)
This Island Earth (classic B)
Millennium-(b-film, great concept)

One Thousand Years
The 100 People Who Made The Millennium
What, no Babe Ruth? How, ask you, could a list of millennium's most important people not include the Sultan of Swat? Plenty of other monarchs failed to make the lineup as well. To get on this team, a person had to change more than just a corner of the world-he or she had to divert the great stream of human history, alter our perceptions perceptibly. A runner edged out Ruth (and Jackie Robinson) by setting a new standard for any owner on two legs. You'll find his name at No. 92 on the following list, which ranks the honorees by importance. Many names will be familiar from the events section, but not all. A few-Watt, Koch, Gutenberg-appear there but not here. Some of history's paramount figures are remembered more for a single accomplishment (such as ushering in the age of print) than for the force of their personalities. Though the actions of the individuals who made the list affected all kinds of people, they are an overwhelmingly male, pale bunch. All but 17 are of European extraction; only ten are women. This reflects not the biases of LIFE's editors and expert advisers but the sociopolitical realities of the past thousand years. For most of that time, as Virginia Woolf noted, women have served largely as "looking-glasses...reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size." Likewise, the millennium's most conspicuous historical movement has been the rise of the West-which means Westerners often borrowing ideas and technology from other peoples, have done a disproportionate amount of global moving and shaking. The next millennium's list of planet-rattlers promises to look strikingly different.
LIFE magazine
http://www.tostepharmd.net/hissoc/top100people.html
I included this in the discussion because I consider it to both vital and relevant. Also, it's from a kick ass book(The 100 Most Important Events & People of the Past 1,000 Years), one of my favorites.
I also feel this is relevant to the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

There's also another pretty prominent blooper in Star Wars when Han and them are taking off in the Millennium Falcon, for a split second in the hall behind the cockpit you can see someone leaving the shot. The lights are green in the hall, and for some reason the guy looks like he's wearing a doctor's coat.

ahh, yes. looks like the glastonbury crowd approves.

now i wanna' see oasis headlining at the apollo.

it'll be the first time this millennium that anyone cared what oasis did.