Peterkin

Not really. But I do find some of these enduring icons of fiction interesting. Toxic substances are cyan-green. Red eyes, or red light, or haze means satanic or underworldly activity. White flowing robes stand for the attainment of some kind of heaven or beatific state. A man or humanoid figure that takes slow, heavy steps intends mindless destruction. There is a series of associations behind such images that comes from a shared cultural sensibility.

The Simpsons are a particularly poor example of coulour-realism. How many people have you seen with chartreuse skin?

It may just be a simple, superficial association with toxicity. https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/05/02/scheeles-green-the-color-of-fake-foliage-and-death/ After all, cartoons and comic strips have a limited, unsophisticated palette, as well as a limited, unsophisticated range of conceptualization. They need to make a visual association instantly, without explanation or references.

I enjoy the Nature of Things series with David Suzuki. It's a popular program; introductory, rather than advanced science, but entertaining and an excellent way to broaden one's horizons. I just finished watching this one: The Musical Animal https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/ - qrowe, if that avatar is an actual companion, it might be of special significance to you. While I didn't (this time) learn very much that's new to me, I'm always gratified to see good research in animal behaviour.

It cannot possibly be healthy; it must be directed by a controlling entity or principle that does not allow independent judgment. Such a one-tracked mind will produce slaves, worshippers or copies of itself. Besides, ends never justify anything. Ends are nearly always an unforeseen byproduct of means aimed at quite different ends. I'm not sure you could find more than ten ordinary people or two biologists who agree on what the ends should be - what the traits we breed for should be, what a better human should be.

OK Always, or just in this instance?

I see the others, how the logic follows. I don't see how SCOTUS-approved systemic torture by an accredited government agency has to be accepted on the same principle as considering what I might do in a desperate situation.

The pros are in a previous post.

I seem to be the only one who presented a list for criticism. I didn't pretend it would be objective, any more than the decision itself could be disinterested; I didn't pretend that I had fewer unknown factors to start with than I would have in real life. Indeed, I was basing my list on a possible situation, rather than a scripted formula. I counted two ifs and no buts. But math isn't my strong suit.

Oh, the one you asked for? I see. Reputable? Doctor Who is way more influential than Mr. Spock! The reference was a joke. And that's the last time.

And this has to do with evolution.... what, exactly? If the link is insufficient, you may have to watch some Doctor Who episodes. I recommend Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel, Army of Ghosts/Doomsday and Nightmare in Silver . If you're not a Doctor Who fan, it won't make any sense otherwise.

Yes! I've been watching a documentary on the Euro crisis in 2010. Just how insane are we???

Oh, what the hell, I have some time to kill. Cons: 1. It's wrong. 2. It's abhorrent. 3. It's illegal. 4. Scripted fantasy notwithstanding, I cannot realistically be sure I have the right suspect. 5. There has not been time to do correct procedure or even begin. The avenues of investigation that can be exhausted in the time-frame are pathetically few and necessarily incomplete. That's where a conscientious officer would dirct his energies and resources. 6. High failure rate. If it doesn't work, I will have wasted valuable time. 7. I will feel like something less than worm-shit and might become ineffective. 8. I will lose the respect of good officers who might then also be less effective under my direction. 9. Odds are, I'll go up on charges and 9.a. possibly take other officers into trouble with me. 10. The evidence will almost certainly be inadmissible, and the perp - if guilty will go free. 11. If innocent, I will have scarred another person for life, and possibly turned him into a criminal. 12. The police force will be tainted, lose its good reputation and the trust of the populations we're meant to protect, and incidentally 12a. attract people of the wrong character as recruits and 12b. go slowly to hell in a black Maria. 12c. like the police forces of China, Turkey, Syria, et al. 13. Citizens will be too afraid to come forward with needed information. 13.a. Violent criminals will be more likely to shoot police, rather than risk arrest. 14. I may go to jail, with a lot of people I had earlier put there. 14a. I may become a prison bully; go all the way over to the dark side.

OK, I'll try. (Not that I really enjoy the dunking-chair, but just so long as it's for the children....) I tried. Looking at even a partial list of the cons, I decided not to post. Too much contention for no gain. Here is my list of pros : 1. It might work; the potential victim might be saved. 2. If the captive survives; if the evidence is admitted in court, and he is incarcerated, he might serve as an example to deter others from doing whatever he did.

Cybermen are incapable of happiness. They think only about destruction. They take orders from evil megalomaniacs. The icecaps are melting; the coastlines are eroding; islands are submerging; forests and grasslands are burning. Previously arable lands are becoming deserts or swamps; villages and mansions are crumbling off the edge of cliffs. The seventh wave of a pandemic against which even three vaccines are only partly effective is on its way across a world in which conservative governments demand an end to all restrictions and their crazy supporters pelt nurses with bottles; health-care workers who have not yet died or burned out are quitting - which is okay, since the hospitals are running out of beds, equipment and supplies. Half the nations in the world are facing economic crises - and the only way to escape it is to ramp up industry with all its toxic waste, which will make a lot more people sick and exacerbate the climate problem. There are 26.4 million refugees, 48.0 million internally displaced people and 4.1 million asylum-seekers - whom many of the so-far stable nations are interning or turning away - and that's just the humans. Flying insects, including most pollinators, have declined by 76+%, and thousands of other species are going extincts every week. In case it's not burning fast enough enough by itself, humans are destroying the Amazon rainforest. A weak and poorly supported president is holding the world's most powerful country together with scotch tape and prayer and a mad Russian who may already be poisoned by his friends and thus have nothing to lose is contemplating the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to win an argument. Aside from that, everything is hunky-dory and we're on track to a brilliant future.

10-4

They don't look happy. It does. Maybe you just haven't looked far enough.

Of course it can. My laptop could probably do it. As soon as someone defines "energy crisis" in quantitative terms. However, breaking down into mathematical formulae what specific functions constitute the energy crisis - or a crisis of any kind, or even the concept of crisis is beyond the reach of computational skill.

Sure. But what's a superhuman?

Because I don't want to be upgraded. Look north! look south! look east! Look west!

If there's enough time, probably cybermen. Though that's not strictly an evolutionary process so much as an upgrade. The good news is, there probably isn't enough time left.

or birds, for that matter

Completely. Small children, soldiers and prisoners do it all the time. Insect bites are common and rarely fatal or even particularly harmful. I doubt bids would go out of their way to bite a sleeping human. I'd say, on the whole, not very dangerous at all.

Okay, now I'm officially lost. Have no idea how any of this is supposed to work, or what it has to do with reality.

In what frame of reference, with what value system, according to what basic assumptions? As per the OP, I think they have already been exhausted. In several alternative scenarios, they have already been outlined. Judge Posner has pronounced. The US supreme court says it's okay, for government agents, private contractors and offshore facilities in the interest of 'national security' - kidnap victims, not so much. The UK supreme court ruled against it, even by government. The EU is flat-out against it. Even the Vatican has renounced the inquisition.