>You’ve all heard the phrase “nothing’s impossible if you put your mind to it”. But is it simply a phrase, or is there any truth behind it?
In other words can something be impossible? Is everything possible, but not always probable?
>Civilisation has believed in the power of magic for thousands of years, so what’s changed?
There are still people out there who call themselves witches and perform magical rituals, and in the voodoo religion magic is still widely believed in. In West Africa Voodoo Priests say that if you go into your garden every day and talk to just one plant, telling it that it’s going to be the most beautiful flower in the garden, then it will be.
So is magic possible? Does it accord with science? Or is practicised magic all in the mind?
>
>We’ve talked before about the Austerity-Stimulus debate, but a lot of it lies in the sustainability of our debts. According to economists D.Miles & A.Scott:
>Should markets be unregulated? Should we be able to sell drugs, guns, ourselves, part of ourselves like organs, and various other things likely to grab press attention?
Should markets be heavily regulated? Where is the limit for regulation and where should it come from? Should all regulation be carried out by the state?
>I’ve deliberately made this question open to interpretation so make of it what you will. But to start the discussion, global capital flows were larger as a percentage of GDP at the end of the nineteenth century (i.e. when the European Empires covered about 3/4 of the globe) than today, and some critics talk of “Americanisation” as synonomous with globalisation.
>Technological developers and workers are predicting machines will be as intellectually capable as apes by the end of the century, and also able to feel and empaphize as we do. Suppose a situation came to be where machines were more intelligent than us, and just as life like in that they felt emotions as we do. Would you accord them equal rights? If we accorded them equal rights based on our similarities then why do we have greater rights than apes? If not then how do we justify our ‘human rights’ being solely available to humans?
>
If someone gave you a million pounds on the stipulation that you invest it where would you invest? >
>I’m sure you’ve all heard the idea that democratic nations are less likely to go to war with each other, but what about how long they’re likely to stay in a war? Think about Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and you will probably think democracy encourages the troops to come home. But what about war that’s a little closer to home such as total war? In the limited wars of the seventeenth century countries would sue for peace if casualties looked too bad, or victory seemed too difficult to achieve. So what changed between then and the two world wars? At the time of the First World War all European state leaders feared their people and what they would do. I have recently heard it voiced by top Professors that it was democracy and nationalism that made it so difficult to accept peace talks during WW1. Do you agree?
Battison's Blog 