Leaderboard

Interesting.

Yes, I think the problem is that evolution has left us with “an old brain in a new world.” We’re generally good at spotting and avoiding immediate threats, but much less effective at responding to dangers that build slowly over time. That said, it’s not all bad. Humans have learned an enormous amount about the world we live in. We can cure many diseases and even travel beyond our planet—at least short distances into space. Still, the instincts of our “old brain” are constantly competing with the demands of the modern world. You can see this on a personal level. Most of us know that being overweight, eating poorly, or drinking too much is harmful in the long run—yet many of us continue these behaviours anyway. We’re remarkably good at justifying choices that aren’t in our best interests. This ties into a broader, almost unsettling question. Life appears to exist widely across Earth, which suggests the universe should be teeming with advanced civilisations. Yet, so far, we’ve found nothing—at least in our corner of it. One possible explanation is the idea of “the Great Filter.” This theory proposes that as a civilisation develops, it encounters critical stages where it must either overcome a major challenge or collapse. Nuclear weapons could be one example: a point at which humanity might have destroyed itself. While that risk hasn’t disappeared, it does seem less immediate than it once did, and there are likely other challenges we’ve successfully navigated. It may be that most civilisations fail at one of these stages. If that’s the case, it’s possible we may have already progressed further than many others. If so—well done us.

Yes, and no. Our behaviour really stems from the fact that humans are the result of evolution, not intelligent design. We collectively refuse to accept that we are animals governed by survival instinct which is fine tuned to respond to short term threats to our existence. We struggle to respond to any long term threat. Our brain just can't do it. This fact is the biggest single threat to humanity.

Guess you are not a member of a Southern Baptist Church. Theres Scopes of room for discussion of your statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial

I think it's time to separate the climate debate from the energy issue. Not to diminish the climate crisis in any way, although the vested interests have been opposing both. Our national food security relies massively on diesel. Since we have little reserve we are vulnerable to foreign sources for our food. Our industry and economy relies massively on the cost of energy. For the first time, thanks to the development of affordable energy alternatives, we are now availing ourselves of energy and transport that is not reliant on international supply. All this cannot happen overnight, & is still unfolding, but I reckon our future looks great.

@Grumpy Old Nasho - you really need to stay away from TV.. It is mainly American fed BS that doesn't even apply in their legal systems. War crimes are covered under the Crimes Act (Commonwwealth), making it a federal office; not a state offence. It is an indictable (serious) offence. However, there is no federal criminal court, the court of the first instance will be the supreme court of whichever state he is in, which is NSW. Under NSW law, all indictable offences require a trial by jury, except where, in the court's opinion, there is so much publicity that would impact almost anyone from being unbiased and potentially predisposed to a guilty verdict. But, this does not apply to federal offences thanks to s.80 (I think) of the Aussie constitrution, that requires all commonwealth (fedral) indictable offences to be tried by jury. The Bondi gunmen are also to be tried in the NSW Supreme Court in the first instance. In both cased, the defence may (and will likely) petition the court that a trial by jury would be prejudicial to the defence. If both succeed, then the outcome will be different for both defendants. Roberts-Smith will walk free. As the court will deem he cannot be granted a fair trial by jury, and the Aussie constitution requires those charged with a federal indictable offence are tied by jury, the court has no choice. It's as simple as that. Of course, the prosecution will appeal it, but if the decision is upheld, Robert Smith is a free man. In the case of the Bondi Gunman, there are 59 offences including murder, attempted murder, terrorism, firearms, etc. For the NSW state offences (murder, attempted murder , some of the firearms offences, some of the terrorism offences), he will still be tried - but by a judge only or a number of judges. He does not automatically walk free. If the defence do not agree, he will still be tried by jury. Unlike Roberts-Smith, he has no "get out of jail" card, if you will excuse the pun. But there's more.. the procedure is slightly different, especially where the judge has to give reasons for finding of fact (where a jury doesn't), It is hard to quantify, but because it holds the judge to a higher level of scrutiny, is is argued tha ut us harder to get a convuiction because they judge requires more to eliminate reasonable doubt (standard of proof the prosecution must provide) and less to introduce doubt on the balance of probabilities (standard of proof required by the defence). Every new editor (TV, magazine, radio, etc) in the country knows this. So, your theory that all the hype with Roberts Smith and the relatively low coverage of the Bondi Gunman is to lynch Roberts-Smith is so far from reality, it beggars belief. It is in Roberts-Smith best interests that there is as much bombastic coverage showing him as guilty as possible. With every press story that can predispose people to an opinion, the defence case stengthens that he can walk away a free man. Similarly for the Bondi Gunman, as if the defence will have less to do to introduce reasonable doubt (not that that will happen) or intorduce a defence (e.g. mental impairment - still slim but probably he only one he has got form what I saw as provication has to be proximate). By the press not covering it obsessively, they are prroviding less than they could to the defence to give them their best short at walking away. But, if you want to reverse the situation and have all the coverage on the Bondi person and none or less on Roberts-Smith, then you are virtually guaranteeing he will be tried, and possibly allowing enough of a sliver of hope the Bonid gunman can rely of some defence (though I doubt it, because criminal mental impariment is a much narrower definition than clincial definitions).

Our Planet is a delicately balanced Place ideal for us to Live in. Why do we destroy it so readily? Are we so stupid?

The Australian court system is as good or Better than Most and it's NOT the Government 's decision to Prosecute cases, unlike the USA, and plenty of other places you wouldn't want to live in. Nev

At the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (~21,000 years ago), sea levels were at their lowest. Between roughly 14,000 and 8,000 years ago, the majority of the rise occurred, with about 90 metres of sea level increase in just 6,000 years, corresponding to an average rate of roughly 15 mm per year. After this rapid rise, sea levels continued to increase more gradually, adding another 30–40 metres over the following several thousand years, reaching near-modern levels around 3,000 years ago. From about 3,000 years ago until the pre-industrial period, sea levels were relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations. From the IPCC report archive (archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/409.htm😞 Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century is in the range 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr, with a central value of 1.5 mm/yr Based on the few very long tide gauge records, the average rate of sea level rise has been larger during the 20th century than the 19th century. No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.

I recall this old saying: "Wake up, Australia" If you head to punters politics on YT, he will inform you of the massive subsidies and tax benefits the fossil fuels and resources industries get

Globally, the old energy oligarcs are flooding the zone with misinformation and graft to protect their wealth. Quote from The Guardian:- "Australian governments subsidising fossil fuel use by more than $30,000 a minute, analysis finds Australia Institute data finds state and federal subsidies for coal, gas and oil products increased 10% in past year, growing at a faster pace." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/11/australian-governments-subsidising-fossil-fuel-use-by-more-than-30000-a-minute-analysis-finds Yes, there are also subsidies at present for non fossil energy. But in the face of the fossil fuel subsidies, it is the only way to compete.