User:Hawstom/Chalkboard

Hubbert peak
Now, about me. I'm a civil engineer and a humanitarian. I decided a few years ago that I couldn't think of a greater humanitarian professional focus than providing energy for mankind. I have always been interested in the latest developments in solar energy, nuclear energy, wind energy, and anything that has to do with cheaper, better energy. I am also very interested in water, but I decided that given enough energy, anybody can get water anywhere. Hence the limiting technological factor (of course political factors may be in reality dominant) to global prosperity is energy development.

I had been editing the Wikipedia for months, mainly in the Mormonism area, when I realized I ought to try to contribute in the more "boring" areas of my expertise. So I helped out a bit on the Civil engineering article and the Energy development articles. I am sure you can imagine those articles are not really "hot". In fact, I had to create the Energy development article from scratch; the Energy article that existed at that time was solely a discussion of the scientific meaning of what is energy.

After a few months of getting some really nice edits to Energy development, somebody suggested a lot of the article be moved to Future energy development. Maybe it was Ultramarine. I told them I was essentially the father of that article, and I thought that would be a nice move. I think it was at that time that somebody suggested that there was a lot of material at Hubbert Peak that might be growing to encompass much more that essentially pertains to Hubbert Peak, and that maybe ought to be in broader articles. It was at that time that I first visited Hubbert Peak.

I don't know when I first learned about the Hubbert Peak theory, but I was well read and informed on it when I first visited the Hubbert Peak article. I get as easily excited as the next fellow about the implications of the theory. I personally am thoroughly convinced that global oil price stability is threatened already, and that the economic development of China combined with the Islamist instabilities have already led to the beginning of the final inexorable climb of oil prices. I am quite delighted about this, as I envision that this will hasten the transfer to more utopian forms of energy harvesting. In short, to me Hubbert's Peak is a reality that will end global warming and hasten the dawning a a more golden age of sustainability based on immediate solar power such as wind and photovoltaic.

Talk:Human
I think the previous consensus (which of course we could rework with a similar mobilization), was that NPOV isn't SPOV, and there were significant perspectives that defined humans primarily by other than biological terms. One significant perspective might say a human is what wears clothes and tells stories. Another significant perspective might say a human is what is in the image of God. Another significant perspective might say a human is the viceregent, steward, or offspring of God. Therein lies the pickle we must honestly confront in this article. This entire encyclopedia, or a large portion of it, is about aspects of humanity. But this article is about the fundamental definitions of humanity. Tom Haws 16:18, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Human
According to the three largest religions, that together have adherents totalling 70% of the world, humans are beings of soul. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church a human is a being of body and soul in the image of God. According to Islam, every human "is composed of three parts—spirit, carnal soul, and body" and humans are the "vice-regents of God". According to Hindu Advaita thought, "no such thing as a human exists. The human phenomenon (supposed to consist of the mind, vital energy, and physical body) is an illusion. Only God exists." And according to Hindu Dvaita thought, "humans, like all creatures, are souls of God (or divinity) enclosed within a complex of bodies ranging from very gross (the physical body) to very subtle (the ego). Humans, however, are unique among living things in that they have the potential to realize their divinity."


 * You could substitute "illusion" for "misunderstanding of reality" --Goethean 15:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I also am thinking an improvement in the attribution direction might be to start with something like: The great spiritual teachers of the world's religions have defined humans in terms of divinity and soul. According to Moses, "God created man in his own image...of the dust of the ground...; and man became a living soul."  According to Jesus, "the kingdom of God is within you." Tom Haws 16:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a very good idea. Because, for example, even if I quoted the most popular contemporary Hindu writer, there would still be millions who did not agree with the assertion. And the anti-religion crowd on Talk:Human would use that fact to reject anything that you or we propose. In Hinduism, the most important texts, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, are anonymous. But all Hindus accept them as authoritative. --Goethean 18:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true. The Bhagavad Gita is supposed to have been written by Krishna. But the Upanishads are anonymous. --Goethean 18:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Vedas are anonymous because they are considered to smrti or revealed scripture, the word of God, in Hinduism, which has no author, in contrast to shruti, what is remmbered, and is written by man. See Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita is in fact transcribed down by Vyasa. Raj2004

''THE IMMORTAL SOUL

''In this section are passages about the soul or spirit of the human individual, which may be characterized variously as the divine Self in Hinduism, or as the product of conditions and causes in Buddhism, or as the core of the individual person, partaking of his or her choices and deeds, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. From the perspective of ontology, we note that Buddhism does not conceive of the soul as ultimately real; it parts company with the Hindu and Jain concept of the soul as identical with the divine Self (Atman). Such a distinction might well be seconded by the Abrahamic religions' understanding of God as fundamentally Other and distinct from his creatures. But ontology is not at issue here; one may refer to passages under Formless, Emptiness, Mystery, pp. 85-92, and Original Mind, pp. 217-23. In this chapter we are only concerned with the soul as a phenomenological entity which carries the destiny of the individual person.

''First of all, the soul, in any of these varied conceptions, is more essential to a person's identity than his body, which is made from clay and is but a vestment, a possession, something one has rather than what one is. Next, we examine notions of eternal life: how the soul survives the death of the physical body. Although the manner of its survival varies among the religions--it may remain close to earth, ascend to Heaven, descend into hell, participate in a general resurrection, merge into the Godhead, or transmigrate into another body--the fact of its survival is a common thread that unites them all. These texts include descriptions of a new 'spiritual body' which will clothe the soul in the next life. Finally, we have several passages which liken the transition to the next life to waking up from a dream." http://www.euro-tongil.org/ws/theme040