Sisyphus

I like that the assumption that we're "playing" goes unquestioned.

Because he's relaying the opinions of our founding fathers?

Obviously she's an utterly ridiculous and annoying person, but that's not a reason to hate someone, it's a reason to ignore them. I hate her because I know who she is and lots of stuff about her despite never being at all curious about her or impressed by something she's done, and I resent the aggressive intrusion of ultra-dumb pop culture into my awareness, which apparently is completely intentional on her part. And if it's not intentional, then I hate whatever mechanisms are responsible.

I think you're probably right. If nothing else, complex life has to start out simple, and have a long time frame in probably much more selective conditions - it's much easier to imagine microbes surviving in a much larger variety of conditions than anything else, but of course that is completely speculative, as we only have the one individual, Earthlife, to try to extrapolate from. It's also a little bit tricky because towards the "simple" end, the line between life and nonlife is pretty much arbitrary, especially with ETs when presumably it's going to be fundamentally different even from "low-end" life here on Earth.

It's time to declare a war on declaring "wars" on abstract concepts.

I think the implication is not so much that he's an ambulance chaser as that he sympathizes with and defends the killing of abortion doctors. But I might be wrong.

1) They can't afford to, for the most part. 2) Everyone moving out of a poor neighborhood is not terribly practical, no?

Scientists do assume that, yes. In fact, all of us do, all the time, and we can't not assume that, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, supposing rational thought to be illusory as your first step means there is no second step. In fact, there is no first step, since the very idea defeats itself. That doesn't mean we're not aware of the assumption, however.

Wouldn't distilled water be the purest possible?

I agree it's probably time to dismantle the affirmative action system. It's a solution which is becoming almost as bad as the problem it's trying to solve, and it's not solving that problem.

Do you mean it's taboo to question that assertion? Or are you suggesting that should be a good rule of thumb for what we still consider "taboo?" If the former, I think you're right with regards to certain circles. If the latter, then I agree completely.

Almost nothing is universally taboo. If you're talking about, say, America, then you can make stronger statements. Incest, pedophilia, beastiality, are strongly taboo almost everywhere. Also, public sex. Sexual harassment in the workplace is a recent taboo. Homosexuality is still quite taboo in a lot of places. For that matter, so is recreational (not for procreation) sex. Feminism isn't really enough of a single entity to judge in that way. Are women enough like men that it makes sense not to have one sex subservient to the other? Yes, I would say so. Equality. No. Where?

Would they be "bats" if they weren't?

You have to wonder what an animal with wings would be doing on an atmosphere-less moon.

...and yet you're wondering if it's possible to get energy from the sun.

I think he means it's not feasible because no human would eat that crap.

I hope you're using ox tendons for the torsion springs.

lucaspa, Your argument seems to hinge on the "natural selection works better than any possible artificial selection" premise, yes? I don't see evidence for the "any possible" qualification, just for the need to be careful. It is tampering with nature, that's true, but is this tampering really fundamentally different from the exponentially increasing tampering we've been doing for thousands of years? All technology, let alone medicine, is a tampering with natural selection. Or, looking at it another way, it isn't: our technological advancement is just part of the natural process, in which case developing the capacity to consciously alter ourselves would be part of that natural process, as well. Also, you seem to be equivocating with regards to "good" in the natural selection sense (i.e., traits that would be selected for, i.e. traits that would increase chances for offspring in a particular environment) and "good" in the sense of what we actually want. Yes, it's true that something like intelligence is not going to be good in every case in either sense, but be reasonable. Natural selection might make us into mindless slugs, and that might help us pass on our genes, but you can't tell me you would favor that outcome over continued sentience and civilization just because the former is "natural," can you? "Nature" doesn't "value" intelligence except in very specific circumstances, but WE do. As for intelligence, it is just an example - the argument does not hinge on whether making everyone smarter is ultimately "good" or "bad," only whether any intentional change whatsoever could possibly be "good." However, I happen to think that that particular change, a small increase in average intelligence, would be beneficial. I could make endless speculative arguments for it, but ultimately I would only favor such a thing if more serious study was applied to it first, something which would never happen if people spooked by the whole scifi-like idea refuse to even consider it. Finally, I think your example with Stephen Hawking is a bit flawed. Yes, he would never exist in his present form if severe genetic diseases were all eliminated. And some other great genius will never exist if they aren't eliminated.

That's true. I'm not blaming bicyclists. I'm blaming the infrastructure, which in most places in America (even most urban areas!) is set up to only be practical for the almighty automobile.

Exactly. Isn't that rather ridiculous?

Because that wouldn't require lots of other people to work really hard to satisfy some extravagant whim. And really, isn't that what living simply is all about?

Amusing Microsoft Surface parody:

But... I am cool when I'm drinking.

Are not arrogant and inconsiderate bicyclists equally as annoying as their counterparts in cars? Isn't it ridiculous when bikes ride in car lanes? After all, you wouldn't walk in a car lane and expect the growing line of cars behind you not to be annoyed at going 3mph, would you? Isn't a bicycle just the same thing to a slightly lesser degree? Aren't bikes much more able to get out of the way of cars than vice versa, 98% of the time? I'm not questioning that specific incident, bascule. That guy was obviously an ass. But anyone who's been in a car and shared the road with cyclists knows that bad drivers are universal. I can't count how many times I've had to swerve or slam on the breaks because some jackass bike messenger runs through an intersection or rides in the middle of a major road or something, assuming that everyone will get out of his way. You're not cows and this isn't India, guys.

And he's a teenager you say?