kotake

There have been people living for over 100 years without any technological help. But that's not what you mean, is it? As for the life-extending technology and/or medicine, how does it work?

When observers are in different relative speed to each other, they have a different perception of time, one can say, as time flows at a different rate for the observers. But time is not one universal measure. As far as I believe, time relates to the movement of atoms, and I don't know how that would incorporate into your definition of soul.

Newton first introduced the value, as an infinite sequence.

albertlee, Yes, medicines and drugs are still being tested on animals today. Animal tests are not accurate, yet they may happen to give drug developers a general idea of how a new drug interacts with organisms, and sometimes this can lead to the development of a drug which indeed saves many human lives. But it is then looked apart from the lives wasted under the tests. If a medicine is meant for humans, yet is being tested on non-humans, it requires the painful involvement of a bigger number non-humans than it would if it were tested directly on humans, obviously, in order to increase the accuracy. But, of course, a given test is accurate for one particular species when performed on that species. The inaccuracy lies within the generalising of the results onto humans. For instance, if vivisectors find that a drug kills 3 out of 5 chimpanzees two hours after dosage, it does not necessarily mean that the same will apply to humans. One of the reasons drugs and cosmetics are being tested on animals is because a number of people believes that humans can experience suffering in contrast to, or to a bigger extension than, other non-human animals. There are many reasons. Several of them have already been expressed in this thread.

Actually, during the latter years, there have been found over 100 other solar systems that have gas giants as inner planets. Thus the model works for our Solar System, but can not be generally applicable. According to a new theory nebulae don't spontaneously collapse (among others, the gas particles have too high velocities when they collide to be able to stick together) - in order for particles to clump together and form planets they must be activated by enormous external forces. These forces may come from supernova explosions, which emit shock waves and destabilise the gas clusters. The gases then collapse and start hydrogen fusion, giving birth to stars. Remaining dust settles like disks around the new born stars. When other supernovae explode they provide the systems with heavy elements, like iron. The elements intermingle with the gas disks, and thus planets form, orbiting the star.

I have always imagined that individuals find certain members of their species attractive, or "hot", because they unconsciously see in them genetical values; values to make their species more resistant from extinction.

Aw... I know how it is to not have friends. Well, I hope you'll like this place, and you don't have to be super-intelligent to join. I proved that by joining myself. A big welcome to you and to the other new-comers!

The Vegan Society gives out this information: I have heard this argument countless times. Of course it will only work in a large scale! I keep thinking, if all the countless people saying so did in fact eat less meat, then it would make quite a big difference, in total. Imagine if a person didn't vote during elections because he felt that his single vote didn't have much to say. Certainly one single unit of vote cannot change much. Now imagine if all the voters thought so. Many small units put together make up the "large scale". To change the world one must start somewhere. It cannot all be changed over night. A good point to start is with one self. Sure is. I could keep expressing my definitions of "too much", but then again, much of what we are discussing is subjective. Unless we manage to stay entirely objective as some of you admirably manage to, it is, as Mokele said, about our personal beliefs. Yes, well that is of course an ethical conflict. I cannot change your beliefs. I am merely expressing my own. I don't know specifically about your university, but there are many cases all around. On this page you can find a collection of incidents at various places. It holds the introduction: I (almost) agree to that. Again' date=' most of us here are expressing our own beliefs. It is as you said, we all have our own perception of morality, and in times it might lead to conflicts. But imagine that someone's beliefs invovle the act of persuading others to their own, because they see it as the only right thing to do. That being part of their belief. As we have no empirical facts for that (meaning of life etc), it once again comes down to beliefs. But as you said, it is the society that forms our morals. Then I may claim that it is a flaw in society, that it holds animal testing as morally right, whereas it holds the killing of a human as morally wrong. If some of my answers in this post are found dissatisfactory by being incomplete, imperfect or inconsistent, it might be caused by the fact that it's late and I am very tired.

I don't believe it's a worthy life for anyone with a somewhat evolved nervous systems to function as a machine, genetically produced or not. Dead animals can be used for that, unless locomotion is desired. I didn't say that you do. I said "a lot of them" do. Alright, but for what purpose do you perform these studies? And how do they differ from examining humans? Not *every* major advance in science involved animal testing. Can you define "angels", please?Whether species are parasites, predators or intellectuals, it is their way of living and surviving.

That would imply an awful long period of time for eating that plant. My example was metaphoric. It was meant to illustrate the action of eating less meat. I see. In that case I neither have any feasible answer. I don't find it unethical to have "enough", but to have "too much", in the sense of "more than needed", as this would harm others because it would deprive them of certain vital resources, leading to assymetric distribution. My point is that we cannot know whether pigs have consciousness. The behavioural observances might indicate different things. We say that humans have consciousness, but what in our behaviour indicates consciousness? We say we have consciousness because we can feel it subjectively. I don't think behaviour can measure consciousness, but then again I am not qualified to say so, so maytbe I shouldn't. Again, the point was to show that even though humans are said to have consciousness, it might not be achievable to directly observe it for an outsider. I see. I though it was to illustrate how cows have behaviour rather than consciousness. Okay, but we know there is a possibility for non-human animals to have consciousness, ergo feel mental distress. Therefore, we should base our actions on operating in accordance with this - i.e. where there is a possibility for discomfort, we should not carry out the operation - until proven wrong. What makes you think it would be illegal?

No, but you said that "about anything" is special about the human race. I was claiming it wrong because I understood "about anything" as "any detail you can think of". And that isn't special when we are so similar. I might have misunderstood your post though. Prove it to be wrong. What has PETA to do with this paragraph? Anyway, PETA has a poor reputation with most people because of their sometimes exteme ways of action. That doesn't mean they are totally unreliable. Because we don't need it to survive. It might have been a slight overstatement regarding your post, yes, but it serves the same. By "all means" I meant that, decuing from your statement, you held it of high importance to harm others if it served us however little. Well, it depends. A vegan diet can be balaced too. Yet I am not saying that everyone should be vegan, or even vegetarian. I urge people to eat less meat. The reason I am vegetarian myself, is basically because of overpopulation. Today's world population is high, and in addition many of these people eat large quantities of meat (i.e. much more than they need). This leads to the development of intensive factory farming. I am vegetarian because I want to reverse this outcome. The idea with multivitamins is that one should take them, not stop taking them, and they are a part of vegan diet. If a vegan should stop taking multivitamins he would be no vegan. It's just not possible. If taking multivitamins instead of eating meat causes some individuals to avoid suffering, then so be it. Sometimes propaganda is necessary to make people open their eyes. Are you insinuating that I took all the material I posted from PETA? Because it isn't necessary, and it harms others, in the manner that luxury removes resources from those who own little and transfers it to those who already own much. Not at all. That is why I put counsciousness in bold.

I do. http://caat.jhsph.eduhttp://altweb.jhsph.edu http://www.frame.org.uk http://www.stifud.se/om_djurforsok/lankar.php To mention some. I cannot make much sense out of your statement, as we share 98,8 % of our DNA with chimpanzees. Eating a plant instead of an animal would ease your own suffering (health, environment a.o.), not to mention the suffering of the animal raised for food. You mean that guinea pigs are made for being tested on? You mean that "being guinea pigs" is the same as being experimented on? That's a sad viewpoint. Your words are somewhat contradictory. Shades of Hitler you say? That means you would exterminate the vivisectors as well? Personally I don't view anything as being "thoroughly evil", but from what you say, it seems to include vivisectors. Hmm, your working place must have been a true exception. Animals that are already dead may be "donated" for research. What is problematic with using the same methods as for human anatomy research? Since humans have such a dignified high intellect, they should be able to use it to widen their circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures. To equate humans with non-human animals means to equate their values of life. Because our intellect allows us to do more, and this we should use to help those who lack this capacity. It is better to be careful rather than risky when we are unsure about whether someone can feel pain. As for pain versus suffering, you might want to read http://www.vkm.no/dav/0b5264a744.pdf Hehe, but actually, the word "vegetarian" does not come from "vegetables", but from the Latin word "vegetus" which means "whole, sound, fresh, or lively". The original meaning of the word implies a balanced philosophical and moral sense of life, a lot more than just a diet of vegetables and fruits. You make it sound like some kind of war between humans and other animals.It is a matter of existence. We cannot help who we are born to be. It could well be that one of us would have been born as a rat, and, unless you believe in karma, no one could help it. An individual born into a stressful preset cannot do much to get out of there. Therefore, needs the help of others (read: intelligent ones). What you give an example of here is the fact that many humans use their intelligence to take advantage of others. Again, why shouldn't we use our intelligence to ease everyone from harm? You say cows survive because humans let them survive, but these lives are not worthy lives. Why, in your opinion, do we have to harm others by all means, beat the system to put ourselves on the top? How does this serve us and the Earth altogether? Animals kill each other because they need to eat. Predators are built to solely feed on meat, whereas humans, like bears, have the great advantage of being able to eat both meat and plants. One thing is that a mostly plant-based diet is healthier for humans. Yet, many people continue to eat loads of meat - not because they need it - but because it is tasty. They eat more than they need. It is luxury. The problem is the quantity of animals slaughtered for food, and the way they are treated. So the cows owe humans for this? Hehe, now that isn't very consistent with your previous statement. Given, of course, that cows most definitely can feel, and think, at least to a certain degree, as In My Memory has debated. It might not be unethical in itself to kill. The problem lies in the treatment of the cow. But, of course, it might be unethical to kill a cow, if its death serves no one. For instance, if someone is very rich, has loads of food, and in addition kills a cow, just to sell the cow and to get even richer. That would be unethical, because that someone doesn't need the extra money. We assume here that the person who bought the dead cow already had more than enough food, and that he bought the cow just for the luxurious taste of meat. Both sides imply luxury. Luxury is unethical. A lot of them are. Otherwise, the injuries would be inflicted to the lab animals. From what I read, the products in the articles you submitted had all been animal tested. The cosmetics developers should utilise to a greater extension what they know about chemistry and biology when they create new products, instead of mixing all kinds of ingredients and testing them on rabbits' eyes. When cosmetics have fatal outcomes when used by consumers, it only shows the reliability of animal testing. "Procter & Gamble puts out the most thoroughly tested products on the market today," as the article you posted writes, and yet people suffer when they use the products. Different animals react differently to the same ingredients. It might be. But we cannot know for sure without absolute facts. The same could be observed among humans, if the observer didn't know how to communicate with humans. Exactly. And since we don't know, we should take some precautions, and not assume that animals cannot suffer. Thus, due to this lack of knowledge, we should not perform animal testing, because we don't know if it doesn't cause suffering. I do. And I have good reasons. And in humans.Yet we say that humans have consciousness because we ourselves are subjective humans. We know we have caonsciousness because we ourselves can feel it and communicate over it; whereas we are not able to directly "feel" consciousness in other species, because we cannot communicate with them at a satisfactory level. I can't see how this differentiates cows from humans. Surely the same must apply to us? (non-suicidal behaviour because of reproduction) This, I agree, is a good idea. There are many alternatives. Voluntary human testing is just one of them. Not all animal testing would be replaced by this alternative. That doesn't make much sense to me. Non-human animals still go through the same hazardous process as in "regular" animal testing, and it doesn't seem to be reduced much despite the human testing. And the animal tests are not accurate. Many drugs get rejected even after passing animal testing. And sometimes, the drugs will not pass animal testing, yet they might not have been harmful to humans. I don't see much point in animal testing. http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs05.html There is no benefit in torturing individuals under animal trial phase. Well, there is some, but there is more netto harm than benefit from it. If that is indeed what the drug developers do, then they have a serious lack of knowledge and things to do. Would it be right to put "whatever you created" right into the mouth of a different animal? As I have mentioned before' date=' animal corpses can be used for such research. Animals that died a natural death. I would say that pure knowledge isn't worth so much. As long as it hurts no one, knowledge-seeking research can be performed. But if it becomes a question of pain, we should restrain ourselves from seeking the knowledge. This is a problem. Some people identify themselves with all other humans so strongly that they make all non-human animals their rivals, or even enemies. Are we at war with all the non-human animals? And what is "we"? Why do we feel more compassion towards humans rather than other animals? Yes, but it does the opposite to the anonymous animals that the medicines are being tested on. That is just because the non-human animals cannot make a communicable decision of volunteering or abstaining from the tests. We cannot know that.

Looking through Hubble with an artist's eye Yep, Hubble is a source for amazing art. Great site, HubbleSite.

libation = liquor wicker

And what is so outrageous about Einstein's theories and not about Mark's theories?

Here is my current desktop, but the image changes automatically and often.

Yes, but could you give an example? I may be on the wrong track, but, if c changed throughout time, today's laws of physics would still succeed if we were using them to calculate events that occur at one given moment, that is, if we knew c for that moment.

I think it exists. We just don't have the "equipment" to see it separately.

I read it in a magazine (Illustrert Vitenskap nr 4, 2005). But here is this book, "Faster Than the Speed of Light" written by Magueijo, and besides, if scroll down a little (to section ten), there is a paragraph or two about it on this page.

Cadmus, are you saying that darkness is EM radiation of wave lenghts that the human eye cannot see? In that case, darkness is not an absolute concept. It must surely depend on the observer's eyes which wave lenghts of EM radiation he can see. For instance, different species that we know of perceive different wave lenghts, let alone the diversity of telescopes in use. So basically, the definition of darkness will depend on the observer.

Are you saying that complete darkness is the lack of visual light then? To me, the physical term of "complete darkness" is when there is no EMR at all, which is, as we have discussed only possible inside a theoretically perfect faraday cage. Earlier in the thread you said that darkness is light (EMR) because we can "see" it. How do you define "sse it"? If we imagine the faraday cage situation, no photons will hit the observer's eye, so how can we "see" it?

There's always dark matter Are you thinking about anti-photons? Now that's a quite different discussion. I disagree. Like Callipygous said, it's similar to sound. We can hear sound because our ear-drum receives stimuli from sound waves. And still, we can define quietness; it's the lack of sound. And darkness is the lack of light. It will, of course, depend on the observer's "eye" how to define darkness, as it determines which wave lenghts can be seen. In a way I can see what you are saying, Cadmus; do you suggest that complete darkness has never been observed, so by scientific method it cannot be said to exist? Yet still I belive that we should not look apart from the theory of darkness.

On some of the other forums I am member of there is an option for putting a picture inside the profile, which is also slightly bigger than an avatar. Perhaps the same could be done here?