ScienceNostalgia101

When the embryonic stem cell research debate was mainstream back in the 00s, I remember the talking point that adult/cord blood/etc... stem cells have shown better results so far, and therefore should get all of the funding, with none of it going to embryonic. (Mostly seen on webforums, but some of it still available on religious zealot websites.) Of course, I suspect that many of the people who said that were already biased against it on religious grounds and/or "life begins at conception" grounds. But obviously this isn't the only issue, or they would've been content to say so outright. Obviously to either them or, in their eyes, everybody else, future potential can be judged only on past results, and not on what scientists say their future potential is. At the time I found such notions almost shocking. But I've since come to hold similar opinions on "scientific" polling, (to make a long story short, I think they're more afraid of losing funding by pissing people off with mentions of respondent dishonesty than of getting the next election wrong) so I guess my own worldview is not as different from it as I thought. And of course, their proposed middle-ground alternative; let embryonic stem cell research continue, but with private money; would have meant that any company that profits from treatments for a given disease has more incentive to pretend they're trying to cure it than to actually cure it. It all seems so long ago, now... Obama resumed public funding for embryonic stem cell research. Curiously, two Presidents later, the media never did much follow up on whether the scientists or their critics were the ones vindicated by history. You'd think this would be of interest if only for reflecting people's comparative credibility on other things. Which leaves behind a question; what's stopping public-sector researchers from also pretending they're trying to cure it instead of actually curing it, to keep the funding coming in? What incentive structure would be the most effective at deterring such a conflict of interest? And what metric, if not, "scientists say this has potential," is there for gauging the potential of a given scientific endeavour?

The same applies. They manufacture cement, steel, and plastic, and generate electricity, because people want goods and services that involve cement, steel, plastic, and/or electricity, and want them to be as cheap as possible. A carbon tax, if it were designed to be just that, a carbon tax, would tax all carbon pollution equally, whether it's power plants, meat, driving, or manufacturing. If power plants and manufacturing are more guilty, by rights, they should get hit harder until they clean up their act. (Or if not, the tax dollars taken from them should be reserved for helping future victims of climate change.) The electricity one might depend on the country. In Canada we get more of ours from hydroelectricity, and less from fossil fuels, than the USA. This is partial vindication for eco-antinatalists; if there were far fewer people, it would be far easier to meet demand for electricity from renewables than if there were more of them. "Lungs of the Earth" implies that deforestation is a clear and present danger to our ability to breathe. "Carbon sinks of the Earth" would be a more honest phrase. That some people use the term "lungs" would explain why people suspect that a desire to lie on environmentalism's behalf might have crept into the minds of some scientists. It wouldn't be the first time. Nonetheless I appreciate this statistic and will invoke it whenever a vegan gets a little too holier-than-thou about this!

Well, there's the "warrior gene," but the significance of its role is disputed. With no way of knowing for sure, why not err on the side of caution and seek Presidential candidates from OUTSIDE his family? Quite frankly, given how irrationally some people have been known to react (this site being an exception of course) to blaming genetics for these traits, I wouldn't be surprised if biologists sugar-coated their conclusions just to keep pissed-off voters from pushing to cut their funding. Nature IS nurture, as the fact that we nurture differently than our evolutionary cousins has demonstrated.

What if she might have inherited some genetic factors in her father's proneness to greed, spite, slander, violence, etc...?

Taiwan and South Korea also have closer proximity to the threat on their doorstep, and therefore much more incentive not to sugar-coat it. Thus once news of a contagion from there got out of course they'd jump into action. The western world, on the other hand, would rather sugar-coat how screwed up China is. Whatever lets us feel better about buying cheap goods made there, probably by its enslaved Muslims. And now we're paying the price. So do you think by next time, the western world has the resources and the political will to embrace a Taiwan-level contact tracing strategy? Or would it be perceived as a greater infringement on privacy than lockdowns would be on freedom of movement?

Exponential rise from 2, while still exponential, is still slower than exponential rise from 3. All else held constant, the former would be more controllable.

Taiwan didn't just "ramp up" production for PPE while doing testing and tracing, it also KEPT its PPE instead of squandering it by sending it to China. The USA sent masks to Wuhan instead of keeping them at home, presumably as a PR stunt, but that leaves behind the question of who they were trying to impress. People who think it's a charitable gesture? People who think fighting the disease overseas would prevent it from coming to one's home country when, quite frankly, at least shutting down travel sooner would've at least resulted in not as many cases coming in?

Not just by their initial failures, but by their plain dishonesty about them. They tried to silence their own citizens for spreading awareness about this disease. If not for that, the rest of the world could've shut down travel and had a much better chance at getting this disease under control. Any alliance large enough to incorporate a country that does that; without accountability to citizens to keep them in check; has no business influencing alliances between democracies. Deranged Donald screwed up too, but that doesn't absolve the Chinese government of its share of the blame for a disease that harmed countries other than just the USA.

Seeing as how market-worshippers are typically the most vocal opponents of a carbon tax, I think that's their first clue that capitalism is threatened by it. I doubt with the immense scrutiny such an inevitably controversial tax would attract the rich could get away with "pocketing the difference." Besides, what's the alternative? At least with a carbon tax we make the polluter pay up, and it becomes legitimately none of anyone else's business why they polluted... for real this time, not in the sense climate change denialists say, as dollars reserved for future victims of climate change can be used to reimburse them. What alternative do you have in mind, and could it come across as "picking and choosing" about which reasons to pollute are more legitimate than which others?

Huh? No Captain Disillusion? The guy's a genius! He even figures out the video editing tricks used in hoax videos! (I presume from my reputation on this site I don't need to prove this guy isn't me?)

So if you don't believe a carbon tax would steer people toward a food-equivalent of mass transit, do you think it would steer them toward taking the bus to the grocery store (ie. in larger numbers than people in major cities did pre-pandemic) or toward driving to the store in an electric car? Do you think the world would make a note of the moment at which post-pandemic traffic fatalities surpass fatalities from the pandemic itself? And why, if people are content to make a trip to the grocery store, and a trip back, would they not be content to pool their money into making one food truck make the trip for all of them?

Any of these tasks sound like they could be handled by any other alliances between multiple different countries' departments of public health; alliances that would each be accountable to their respective citizens, as opposed to an alliance that involves a country not accountable to its citizens at all, a country that has all the more incentive to screw them over to save face. Funny you should mention the Marines. We don't just count on the UN for international alliances; we count on institutions like NATO to protect the military interests specifically of countries accountable to their citizens. (Turkey notwithstanding, but they don't have as much clout as China anyway.) So why should international co-operation on medical issues be handled by an institution large enough to be tainted by countries that seek to undermine it? How do we know all these same things wouldn't have been handled even BETTER if it weren't for the toxic influence of countries like China?

So do you think a carbon tax, combined with market incentives, would incentivize the private sector to create a food-distribution equivalent of mass transit, then? Because the "logistics" of taking public transit haven't prevented people in towns that have it from spending money on personal automobiles.

Hence why I pointed out the possibility that if you let the ones countries willingly let in be the judge of this sort of thing, then governments will cover up just enough evidence to get away with it at best, or bribe them into being complicit at worst. Precisely what else is the WHO good for, then? The "information" they're supposed to provide is already distorted, by their own failure to spot the CCP's lies until it was too late at best, or by corruption at worst. Weren't they supposed to be about spreading information? What information could possibly be spread by them that couldn't by the less-corrupt among countries? Information about a new disease that is artificially suppressed by the country responsible for the disease?

Fair enough, I was just hoping for something a little closer to the door to be marginally more secure against "porch pirates." I suppose making home patio surveillance the norm might be a worthwhile investment when this mess is over too, huh? So if curbside dropoff is the norm why is it still the norm to do it on a personalized basis, instead of a more efficient mass delivery system like we have with mass transit?

So are you suggesting there is no cost-effective amount of cushioning that could help it achieve both goals even at short range? Including air cushioning? What if the cushioning materials were to be re-used? Catapult option aside, what of curbside dropoff and curbside pickup? If one truck dropped off enough food items for every customer along the route who claimed to be at home, could they run out to the curb to retrieve it in time to still be within the field of view of surveillance such that the company and/or public service could confirm the food item wasn't stolen by a neighbour? (Ie. Literally fell out of the back of a truck?) I know this is just "home delivery but more specific" but I want something more efficient than personalized delivery as people shouldn't have to choose between their survival and the environment.

I'm afraid I don't keep track of the usernames, but I see this from time to time in monogamy vs. promiscuity debates online and I don't see anyone on the "monogamy" side distancing themselves from it. EDIT: Huh, TV Tropes must have nuked those threads from orbit, because Google search isn't getting me there. Sorry, I've got nothing.

People pay good money to live in major cities. Either they play a vital economic role, or the status and bragging rights of living in a big city are literally to die for. Either way, not everyone can afford enough property to have room to grow all the crops they need. As well, hunting isn't exactly the norm these days. Those who haven't hunted; ever; wouldn't know who to believe on whether the extent to which they're hunting is a threat to the ecosystem. By the time they find out, it might be too late. I meant like a catapult, not like a rocket. As in, just enough horizontal momentum to make it to the lawn but not enough to cause severe friction damage.

Is there any way to safely fire a package from that far away without causing significant damage due to friction, though?

Bonobos have a reputation for massive orgies. Female chimpanzees have a reputation for taking turns having sex with the alpha male. And yet, we as their evolutionary cousins are told; mostly by religious zealots, but sometimes by anti-theists sentimental about marriage; that we evolved revulsion to promiscuity to keep STDs at bay. I find this very hard to believe. Women so admire studs they use "virgin" as an insult. Men so admire the supposed desirability of men who get more action than themselves that they spend hours watching Bond movies that they could have spent having sex with their own wives. And as for "sluts," as much as a man may feel upset that she has other sex partners than only himself, at the end of the day, men aren't exactly known to reject a "slut"'s sexual advances over that, are they? Sure, condoms exist. But that such casual sex even entices people that much in the first place suggests it's almost as though, deep down, our primal reproductive instincts are more powerful than any primal fear of STDs. But there is another primal fear that could have kept STDs at bay; fear of outsiders. If this past year has taught us anything, it's that travel does not need a sexual component to spread disease. All the things we used to be told were more innocuous than sex to engage in with strangers have turned out to be things that can get them killed. Conversely, bonobos keep having group orgies instead of travelling, and you don't see them keeling over and dying as easily as humans do from travel-transmitted diseases. Might the artificial stifling of our natural fear of outsiders; and attempts to pretend we are revulsed by promiscuity when we're plainly not; deserve some share of the blame for the mass deaths caused by an evolutionarily-unprecedented level of internaional travel?

The World Health Organization might be talking tough on China now, but back when it would have counted, they were obviously pandering to them. What, if anything, is the use of an "international" organization that can be influenced by any especially powerful country, let alone one with a track record of cover-ups, in ways that get hundreds of thousands of people killed? Is it to "investigate" these countries? Why trust an "investigation" in which the suspects let investigators in willingly, presumably believing they've already covered up all the evidence they need to cover up? Why can't each country just send spies to gather intel on each other country, and then let the public decide which country's spies to believe based on the biases each country may have in favour of or against the country they're investigating?

We've tried mask mandates. But those either weren't enough; or weren't enforceable enough; to adequately curb the pandemic. We've tried vaccines. But we don't even know if they'll be effective against the new strains of THIS pandemic, let alone whatever other pandemic we're dealing with NEXT time. It seems increasingly like everything short of a lockdown is a half-measure. While I'm sure many people would object to lockdowns on "freedom for freedom's sake" grounds, a number of people object to them on "how the hell will I get my groceries?" grounds. And for that, we need... a pandemic-proof system of food distribution. Before the pandemic, we had people take the bus to the grocery store and the bus back. A vehicle had to make two trips; one to load all the passengers,and one to unload all the passengers. Even before the eco-responsible solution became the pandemic-irresponsible one, it never seemed like the most efficient way to get people their groceries anyway. Here's another idea; grocery trucks/trains delivering any of a given food system, or combinations thereof, en masse. Passing by houses, it identifies any paying customer's houses, alerts them of their approach to avoid any unintended injury, and fires cushioned parcels containing said combinations of food items onto the lawn for a customer's subsequent retrieval. Passing by apartments and condominiums, it fires them onto the balcony. No close contact is made between the operator and the customer retrieving the food items. You could even then have customers scan the barcode using their cellphone, just to ensure the parcel is theirs before allowing it to open. (Or perhaps a customer service line could allow it to remotely open for customers without a cellphone.) If we locked down the entirety of society for long enough for those who had the disease to recover, and then subsequently cut off all travel between different countries, this pandemic could've been over before it even started. If we had a means other than grocery stores to get people their food, they would have one less excuse not to embrace the lockdown solution. And who knows? Perhaps when the next pandemic was over, people would so embrace the efficiency of this method of food distribution that they stick with it for the environment's sake? Or we could hesitate on this and let a few hundred thousand more people die when the NEXT new disease inevitably shows up.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change This study is popular to cite whenever someone expresses eco-antinatalist sentiment, or otherwise blames the public for climate change by the notion that they drive too much, eat too much meat, etc... and then vote against politicians who would impose taxation on such things. But by what standard are companies that cater to consumer demand not a reflection of the general public's own culpability? One could invoke game theory, and say that if people who boycotted meat or automobiles noticed they were missing out on products everyone else seemed to be enjoying, individuals' willpower in holding firm to their boycotts would collapse, and a plurality of consumers boycotting them would never be reached. But then, isn't that all the more to actually tax such things, such that those who do enjoy such products then have to reimburse the future victims of the harm such products may do? And yet, (almost) every time a politician unequivocally promises to impose a carbon tax, they get defeated in the next election. If people worship the free market too much to support a carbon tax, doesn't it stand to reason that they would worship it too much to support regulation against the companies themselves? I suppose to some environmentalists, the blame for climate change belongs disproportionately to companies whose donations to politicians give them incentive to deny climate change. But they can't bribe everyone. Isn't it a little condescending to imply ordinary voters who aren't being bribed merely don't know better? And if we go down that path, what of all the eco-zealots who cried wolf about the rainforests being the "lungs of the Earth" when in terms of oxygen output they pale in comparison to phytoplankton? Does this not tarnish environmentalism's credibility, and therefore warrant assigning them a disproportionate per-capita share of the blame as well? Why or why not? As well, if you blame the companies on account of spreading disinformation; and/or bribing politicians to do so; why don't these kinds of articles blame them on those grounds, instead of on the grounds of the fossil fuel extraction that simply caters to consumer demand?

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd So I was recently thinking about this Maddox article today, as I was trying to snap some pictures and videos of the scenic sunset. Photography is an interest of mine, but to some extent so is chemistry, so it brought to mind this article challenging the sincerity of the supposed love for science of people who love the photography brought to us by science. The first reason was "why don't you go do some." I think not everyone is willing to commit to 8 years in university, along with the subsequent "publish or perish" lifestyle to become a scientist. People say they love sex while posting on Tumblr instead of having some. That doesn't mean they're lying. The second reason was that the more mundane, esoteric links on Facebook don't get as much attention as the more relatable and/or politically charged links. I think that's just par for the course in just about any walk of life, including those other than science. A teacher's attention might more easily be drawn to some commentary on the upcoming school board election than to some commentary on Bloom's Taxonomy. That doesn't mean they don't care about education. (Or about Bloom's Taxonomy, for that matter.) What say you, science forums?

Go on. Be specific. Or are you just trying to troll me for shits and giggles?