How can thehuman race survive the next hundred years?
In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?
Is it safe to say humanity biggest threat is human behavior? I'm talking about hate, jealousy, fear, greed, and stupidity. These traits of humanity are what makes governmentworks and society function. It inspire us tocreate technology to win wars and brutally defeat our enemies. People say that the space program have created hightech technology we used today, but I beg to differ. All our technology are a result of past war that we have fought OR will fight.The right brothers may have created a winged lift vehicle, but it wasn't any practicaluse until themilitary weaponizedit to spy andthen bomb our enemies. Rockets were invented long before world war 2,yet it was the German war machine that made people realized it's potential. Radar was developed by various nations, not just Briton, for military application. The atom bomb was just a theoryuntil we realized the military potential to destroy entire cities.We are creating a technology death spiral that will oneday cause our own demise.

Severe events could cause the extinction of all life on the planet Earth, the destruction of the planet Earth, the annihilation of the Solar system , to the annihilation of our galaxy or even the entire universe . Existential risks are distinguished from other forms of risk both by their scope, affecting all of humanity, and severity; destroying or irreversibly crippling the target.
Natural disasters, such as supervolcanos and asteroids , may pose existential risks if sufficiently powerful, though man-made events could also threaten the survival of intelligent life on Earth, like catastrophic global warming , nuclear war , or bioterrorism .
Various existential risks have the potential to destroy, or drastically restrict, human civilization; could cause human extinction ; or even cause the end of Earth .
Societal collapse broadly includes both quite abrupt societal failures typified by collapses (such as that of the Mayan Civilization ), as well as more extended gradual declines of superpowers (like the Roman empire in Western Europe and the Han Dynasty in East Asia ).

Former top-ranking U.S. officials may have received payments from a notorious Iranian dissident group that is on the State Department list of terrorist groups, and then lobbied for it to be taken off the list, sources told NBC News.
Among those caught in the investigation of about 40 people and subpoenaed by the Treasury Department are former FBI Director Louis Freeh and the former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton , the sources said.
The investigation is looking into whetherthe former officials received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees fromthe People's Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, which would violate federal law which bars financial transactions with groups on the State Department's list.
When asked about the allegations, Shelton told NBC thathe and the other officials were "pretty miffed."
"None of us involved in this would say a good word about anyone suspected of being a terrorist," he said.
He added that he supports MEK though, which he told NBC is a legitimate resistance group fighting to overthrow the government in Iran, a country he referredto as "America's number one enemy".
But the group, which found itself on the State Department's list after allegedly killing six Americans in the 1970s, carried out a series of bombings and assassinations against the Iranian regime in the 1980s and was also a big supporter of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein . After Hussein's death, theywere accused of being a thorn in the side of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as they tried to mend ties with Iran.
Sources told NBC thatformer government officials received feesof more than $30,000a talk and were flown first class to Europe. The officials claimed that they were told the fees came from wealthy Americans or foreign supporters of the group — but not the group itself.
Many of the speakingarrangements were made through speaking booking firms, according to the report.
"This is about findingout where the money is coming from," an Obama administration official familiar with the probe said. "This has been a source of enormous concern for a long time now. You have to ask the question, whether this is a prima facie case of material support for terrorism."
Though the MEK has lobbied for years to get off of the State Department's list, experts say they were too dependent on the whims of their Paris-based leadership and are known to change strategies, motives and endgames without warning.
There's no guarantee, experts warned NBC, that they won't return to terrorism without warning.
"It's extraordinary that so many distinguished public servants would shill for a group that has American blood on its hands," one seniorofficial told the network.
The subpoenas come only days after Foreign Policy magazine reported that the multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign on behalf of (and paid for by) the MEK has hurt an international effort to move the group from a secretive hideout on the Iraqi-Iranian border to a new home — to avoid a bloody clash with the Iraqi military.
The Iraqi military hasentered the hideout two times before, resulting in bloody clashes.
The U.N. and State Department’s efforts have been made increasingly difficult as a result of the advocates, FP reported.
“This is hard enough without paid advocates making it worse,” one official told the magazine.

$1.3 billion in military aid...

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration plans to resume military aid to Egypt, American officials said on Thursday, signaling its willingness to remain deeply engaged with the generals now running the country despite concerns over abuses and a still-uncertain transition to democracy.
To restart the aid, which has been a cornerstone of American relations with Egypt for more than three decades, the administration plans on sidestepping a new Congressional requirement that for the first time directly links military assistance to the protection of basic freedoms.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to waive the requirement on national security grounds as soon as early next week, according to administration and Congressional officials. That would allow some, but not yet all of $1.3 billion in military aid this year to move forward, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could discuss internal deliberations.
The threat that the military aid might end was a critical factor in the release by the Egyptian government of seven Americans employed by four American-financed international organizations that were involved in community organizing activities. The prosecutions of the Americans were part of broader concerns the Obama administration has had about Egypt's progress since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak a year ago.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/world/middleeast/us-military-aid-to-egypt-to-resume-officials-say.xml

Wednesday's giant state dinner for British Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife- the biggest ever thrown by Barack and Michelle Obama -- dished up a potent mix of celebrity glam, corporate heft and political money under a giant party tent on the South Lawn. It is an election year, after all.

The entertainment lineup also included a little something special for both couples: The Obamas are big admirers of Grammy-winner John Legend, and David and Samantha Cameron are huge fans of Mumford&Sons, a British folk rock band also performing.

Obama, for his part, also is a big fan of "Homeland" actor Damian Lewis, who said on his way into the huge party tent that he planned to ask the president how he ever finds time to watch TV.

Among the 360 people who scored golden tickets to the dinner were actor George Clooney, billionaire Warren Buffett, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, businessman Richard Branson, Apple's Jony Ive and movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, a big fundraiser for Obama's re-election campaign.

The White House made sure there was a seat at the table for more than 30 of Obama's top fundraisers -- the so-called bundlers who have helped raise at least $50,000 for the president's re-election effort.

An Associated Press review found that a number of coveted seats went to supporters who have raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for Obama, and at least nine went to donors who have raised more than a half-million dollars for his campaign. They include Weinstein, New York financier Orin Kramer and Miami public policy consultant Joseph Falk.
http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57397743&feed_id=3&videofeed=39

Violent films and video games really do numb the brains of teenagers, with repeated viewings making them less sensitive to aggression, according to a new study.
The researchers usedbrain scans to show how they become less emotionally responsive to violence the more they see.
They say it is among the first hard physiological evidence for the theory that on-screen violence leads to real-world aggression.
For years campaigners have argued that watching violent films and playing games like Grand Theft Auto , Mortal Kombat and Modern Warfare makes youngsters more prone to violence. In the Grand Theft Auto series, players become characters who win points for carjacking, killing prostitutes and running over pedestrians.
The problem of Violence on screen , plus a list of knownand innovative solutions.
http://www.ideaconnection.com/solutions/7296-Violence-on-screen.html

The neo-Darwinians opine that it is not possible to see the mark of God in the evolution of living beings. There is no scientific proof of His divine hand. Changesoccur without the guidance of an ethical criterion.
Creationists, however, insist that it is not possible to explain the immense complexity of life without the intervention of a superior being. Further, they believe that human beings have a profound moral sense that can be explained only by the existence of God. It is even propounded that there is a gene that predisposes humans to seek God.

It's been just 150 years since the publication of "On the Origin of Species," in which Charles Darwin outlined his argument that all lifeforms descended from a common ancestor. That is scarcely an eyeblink in the epic context of evolutionary time, soperhaps we ought not to get too bent out of shape over a Gallup Poll suggesting that less than half of Americanadults are willing to acknowledge Darwin was on to something.
In fact, data gatheredon the bicentennial celebration of Darwin's birthday and reposted Mondayshow that just 39 percent of those surveyed in a 2009 random sample of 1,018 respondents say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while 25 percent reject Darwin's argument outright.
Another 36 percent, or nearly all the rest of those surveyed, said they had no opinion either way, which strikes us as a little like having no opinion whether the law of gravity has merit. But we're cheered by the possibility that this noncommittal third of the country is keeping an open mind, at least for the time being.
Americans' continuing reluctanceto embrace Darwin's argument is slightly more alarming when you consider that virtually everything biologists have discovered since either confirms or refines his theory of natural selection.
Indeed, the more education those polled in the Gallup survey reported, the more likely they were to subscribe to Darwin's theory. While just 24 percent of those who had completed high school or less said they believed in the theory, the percentage of believers doubled to 53 among college graduates and 74 among postgraduate degree-holders.
The opposite correlation was observed among those who attended church regularly; just 24 percent of those who attended weekly said they believed in evolution,compared with 55 percent of those whosaid they attended church seldom or never. Gallup said its previous research shows that church attendance rates are fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that differences in attitudes toward evolution were a direct reflection of respondents' religious beliefs.
What is most worrisome, to those of us who struggle in the even more amorphous realm of public policy, is the absence of consensusabout the validity of basic scientific method — the process of testing hypotheses about how the world worksagainst repeated anddisciplined observations of the world. How can Americans find common ground on the subject of, say, global warming if most of us remain suspicious about a scientific consensus that has endured more than a century longer?
The good news, according to Darwin, is that nature favors adaptations that enhance a species' survival. So, assuming observation continues to bear outhis theory of evolution, not only is our species' eyesight improving, but also its capacity to acknowledge what our eyes see.

Creation vs. Evolution.
The neo-Darwinians opine that it is not possible to see the mark of God in the evolution of living beings. There is no scientific proof of His divine hand. Changesoccur without the guidance of an ethical criterion.
Creationists, however, insist that it is not possible to explain the immense complexity of life without the intervention of a superior being. Further, they believe that human beings have a profound moral sense that can be explained only by the existence of God. It is even propounded that there is a gene that predisposes humans to seek God.

It's been just 150 years since the publication of "On the Origin of Species," in which Charles Darwin outlined his argument that all lifeforms descended from a common ancestor. That is scarcely an eyeblink in the epic context of evolutionary time, soperhaps we ought not to get too bent out of shape over a Gallup Poll suggesting that less than half of Americanadults are willing to acknowledge Darwin was on to something.
In fact, data gatheredon the bicentennial celebration of Darwin's birthday and reposted Mondayshow that just 39 percent of those surveyed in a 2009 random sample of 1,018 respondents say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while 25 percent reject Darwin's argument outright.
Another 36 percent, or nearly all the rest of those surveyed, said they had no opinion either way, which strikes us as a little like having no opinion whether the law of gravity has merit. But we're cheered by the possibility that this noncommittal third of the country is keeping an open mind, at least for the time being.
Americans' continuing reluctanceto embrace Darwin's argument is slightly more alarming when you consider that virtually everything biologists have discovered since either confirms or refines his theory of natural selection.
Indeed, the more education those polled in the Gallup survey reported, the more likely they were to subscribe to Darwin's theory. While just 24 percent of those who had completed high school or less said they believed in the theory, the percentage of believers doubled to 53 among college graduates and 74 among postgraduate degree-holders.
The opposite correlation was observed among those who attended church regularly; just 24 percent of those who attended weekly said they believed in evolution,compared with 55 percent of those whosaid they attended church seldom or never. Gallup said its previous research shows that church attendance rates are fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that differences in attitudes toward evolution were a direct reflection of respondents' religious beliefs.
What is most worrisome, to those of us who struggle in the even more amorphous realm of public policy, is the absence of consensusabout the validity of basic scientific method — the process of testing hypotheses about how the world worksagainst repeated anddisciplined observations of the world. How can Americans find common ground on the subject of, say, global warming if most of us remain suspicious about a scientific consensus that has endured more than a century longer?
The good news, according to Darwin, is that nature favors adaptations that enhance a species' survival. So, assuming observation continues to bear outhis theory of evolution, not only is our species' eyesight improving, but also its capacity to acknowledge what our eyes see.

UK court: Euthanasia case can proceed.
In a case that challenges Britain's definition of murder, a judge ruled Mondaythat a severely disabled man who wants a doctor to kill him will be granted ahearing.
It is the first euthanasia case of itskind to be allowed a hearing in a British court.
Tony Nicklinson, 57, suffered a paralyzing stroke in 2005 that left him unable to speak or move belowhis neck. The former rugby player and corporate manager requires constant care and communicates largely by blinking, although his mind has remained unaffected. In January, Nicklinson asked the High Court to declare that any doctor who gives hima lethal injection with his consent won't be charged with murder.
"I have no privacy or dignity left," Nicklinson said in a statement. "I am fed up with my life and don't want to spend the next 20 years or so like this."
The ministry of justice argued that granting Nicklinson's request would require changing the law on murder and that such changes must be made by Parliament. The government had applied to have the case dismissed.
In his ruling, Justice William Charles said Nicklinson was "now inviting the court to cross the Rubicon" and that his case had"an arguable base."
Nicklinson argued that British law hindered his right to"private and family life" — guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights — on the grounds that being able to choose how to die is a matter of personal autonomy.
"The decision to go to a hearing is quite a small step, but what's tremendously significant is what Tony Nicklinson is asking for," said Emily Jackson, a law professor at the London School of Economics."Normally, it would be for Parliament to make any change to the law on murder, so it would be a very,very big deal for the court to make a change like this."
Nicklinson's wife, Jane, says the only way to end her husband's suffering was to kill him.
"A life like this is unbearable for him," she said. "We know there are doctors out there that would do this if it is made legal."
A recent British commission headed by a former justice secretary concluded there was a strong case for allowing assisted suicide under strict criteria. The commission was set up and funded by advocates who want the current law changed. The report did not support euthanasia and recommended assisted suicide only be allowed for terminally ill people, which would exclude Nicklinson.
In 2009, the British government's top prosecutor said people who helped terminally ill relativesand friends die were unlikely to be charged if they acted out of compassion.
In Europe, only Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Switzerland allow euthanasia.
Penney Lewis, a law professor at King's College London, said the U.K. had become more receptive to allowing assisted suicide in recent years but not euthanasia.
"Granting Nicklinson a hearing does not mean euthanasia willbe allowed, but it is abig step," she said.
In 2010, Kay Gilderdale was found not guilty of the attempted murder ofher severely disabled daughter. Gilderdale admitted she had tried to kill her daughter, who had repeatedly asked to die.

The definition of Euthanasia as given by the Oxford English Dictionary is: "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma". It comes from the Greek, literally translating as"a good death" .
Euthanasia is a controversial matter, becoming a bigger issue with high profile cases like Diane Pretty's, a woman suffering from Motor Neurone Syndrome who lost her battle to have euthanasia legalized and died of natural causes in 2002.
Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands and in the state of Oregon in the U.S.A. Recently, the government on the Isle of Man has made a much debated decision to legalize euthanasia. There is a lot of pressure mounting on other governments to follow suit, with more terminally ill patients expressing the wish to end their lives legally. The primary reason, they say, is so that they can die with dignity.
I am going to discuss this topic and strive to give the arguments of both sides. I will then come to a conclusion based on what I have learnt.
People who are against euthanasia are called "Pro-life"; this is also the view of Christians who regard euthanasia as a sin. There are other non-Christian reasons: one of the strongestarguments against euthanasia is the question ofwho can decide how advanced a terminal illness isin order for euthanasia to be acceptable.
For example: the case of American Sidney Cohen, who was diagnosed with cancer and given three months to live. He asked for euthanasia to be administered. He was suffering agonizing pain and was bed-ridden, but was refused euthanasia because it was illegal. Eight months later, he was still living, and said, "I now know that death is inevitable and since coming under hospice home care I now enjoy a full life." His fears of an agonizing death had been allayed and he was now staunchly opposed to euthanasia. The point here is that once fears are laid to rest and pain relieved, many people change their wish to have euthanasia administered. Also, it shows that doctors are not always correct in their diagnoses. Another point that the "Pro-life" lobby try to get across is thatthey believe no one dies painfully now, because of hospices and modern drugs, so euthanasia is not needed.
Other arguments include the fact that many patients feel they are a great burden on their relatives and are causing them much pain. For these reasons, they might ask for euthanasia to be administered, when they may not want to die -- they just do not want to cause their family any more suffering.
Also, someone could pressurea terminally ill person for their own personal or financial gain. For example, an elderly relative could be manipulated by someone who stood to inherit their estate. Unscrupulous doctors may want to remove elderly patients from their lists if they require a lot of care for little financial return. And so on.
On the other side of this argument are those campaigning for a change in the law which would legalize euthanasia, including The Voluntary Euthanasia Society.
One of their most publicized arguments, which was used extensively by Diane Pretty's lawyers, is that if a person was more physically able anddid not need third party assistance to administer euthanasia, they could commit suicide, which is not necessary illegal on its own. Therefore it is argued that this is discrimination againstpeople with physically deteriorating illnesses. That, they say, is in direct violationof the Human Rights Act, Article 14 which outlaws discrimination.
They feel that the fact that euthanasia is not administered to people suffering agonizing pain if they wish it is another violation of the Human Rights Act. Article 3 clearly states that it is everyone;s absolute right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. By not allowing people the choice end their life, the law condemns them to prolonged suffering and increasing loss of dignity.
One argument of the "Pro-Life" camp is that we might see mass deaths if euthanasia became lawful. But those who are campaigning to legalize euthanasia say that figures such as those from Oregon show the opposite. In Oregon, only 0.1 percent of deaths in the last five years have been as a result of euthanasia.
The "pro-life" argument regarding improvement in pain control through drugs, hospices etc. only covers those dying in pain. It does not apply to those suffering debilitating illnesses and physical collapse of their body -- for example, those suffering from Motor Neurone Syndrome. In these circumstances, the loss of independence and the breakdown of all bodily functions ensures a slow, undignified death, understandably some of these patients would welcome euthanasia.

The smallest city in the nation's smallest state -- Central Falls, Rhode Island -- is bankrupt. The main reason is it can't afford the pensions for its retired city workers. How the city is digging out of its financial hole mayhave consequences for city pensions in other cash-strapped towns across the country.
For years, city officials promised robust union contracts and pensions without raising revenue to pay for them. Last August, the math caught up with them.Central Falls was broke, its pension fund short $46 million. It declared bankruptcy.
"My daughters grew up here, went to school here. It's all gone," said Mike Geoffroy, a retired firefighter.
He said he could not make the payments on his house after hispension was cut by$1,100 a month. The small apartment he now calls home is a shrine to better days and fond memories.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57395072/as-cities-go-broke-pensions-are-slashed/

President Obama and GOP front-runner Mitt Romney often rely on the help of a teleprompter when speaking in public. Rick Santorum does not.
The former senator has been quick to point out that difference to voters on the campaign trail but over the weekend he went one step further and delivered this applause-seeking line at Mississippi campaign event (via CNN ):
"See, I always believed that when you run for president of the United States, it should be illegal to read off a teleprompter."
Santorum continued his attack on teleprompters, saying that they allow politicians to read "someone else'swords" that have been "focus-grouped" and are penned by "pollsters and speechwriters," and not the candidate themselves.
"You're voting for someone who is going to be the leader of our government," he continued. "It's important for you to understand who that person is in their own words, seethem, look them in the eye...hear what's(in their) heart. ... You're choosing a leader. A leader isn't just about what's written on a piece ofpaper."

Barbarians