Sisyphus

Their argument is that setting the date IS the step needed to force them to prepare, since there's no pressure if they think the U.S. will stay to babysit them indefinitely. Agree or disagree, but it's not irrational.

I don't really think that's the issue. After all, there's not much difference between harvesting their parts to eat and harvesting them to directly replace our parts. However, there might be something of an issue in the fact that they might not really be "sheep" anymore, since they're technically part human. Are we, then, raising humans for their organs? I don't really think so, but the distinction has suddenly become a lot more arbitrary.

Ah, forgot about roughage. Get a side salad with your human. And, obviously, you'd have to be especially careful in sterilizing it. The other thing I can think of would be if we need constant supplies of certain things which don't stay in our systems long, and would therefore be found in human bodies in too low quantities. My knowledge of biology is insufficient to evaluate the truth of that, or what those things might be. Vitamin C? I can't really think of any other reason. I mean, I know the traditional Eskimo diet is basically 100% meat, and they're actually pretty healthy, so it does seem plausible, albeit kind of ridiculous.

What? A rabbit doesn't eat meat because it's evolved into a niche of eating plants such that it's no good at eating meat. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be nourished by it if it could/was inclined to manage it. I don't get what you're trying to say with the house/tree and such. Surely eating eyeballs would give you everything your eyes need..?

Well, yeah, obviously. Thermodynamics and whatnot. But how far does the "design" go? If I take my identical twin, throw him in a blender, and drink him as a smoothie, wouldn't that necessarily satisfy all my nutritional needs as well as anything could?

I imagine they would break their hands a whole lot more without the gloves.

Specifically, human meat! It's made of exactly the same stuff we are, so it seems like it should have all the nutrients we need, in pretty much the right proportions. Why am I wrong? Am I wrong?

There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are endlessly regurgitated, out of context, hopelessly misunderstood quotes somehow taken as support for a fundamental rejection of science itself. Hmm, not as catchy. How about this, according to the best information we have to go on, man-made factors are primarily responsible for a steady increase in overall global temperature, which will continue indefinitely unless steps are taken to reverse the trend. Is it proven? No. But it's the best hypothesis we have from the present data, which shows a statistical correlation between models and observed phenomena so high as to make it extremely improbable that it is not mostly accurate, as agreed upon by a large majority of the people best able to find out. That's what "scientific consensus" means. What part of that is so hard to understand? Seriously, that's not a rhetorical question. Which part do you not understand? Oh, and spouting conspiracy theories about UN plots and the like doesn't help your credibility. You might want to tone that down.

How did such an old thread get resurrected? Probably some stupid blonde...

You just forgot to multiply the 4 in the numerator by radical 3, as well as the radical 6.

No. Tell us how you got that answer, and we can show you where you went wrong.

But he said "more popular," not "more habitable." You're certainly right, but the fact remains that effective control of Mars could be far more valuable in the long term, even disregarding the obvious prestige of a permanent extraterrestrial settlement. Also, I thought we were talking about terraforming, anyway.

The Jesus Camp people are only "conservative" because they're political. Fundamentalist Christianity is a major force in national politics, and are a major and indispensible part of the conservative base that therefore has major influence on many politicians. As far as I know, there's nothing comparable related to the "Secret," so it's a political non-entity, not "liberal." There might happen to be a lot of liberals stupid enough to buy into it, but it's completely unrelated.

Fossil fuels on Mars would be quite the discovery!

Magic Hat is vile, but otherwise you're right. There are some excellent microbrews out there. And I'd forgotten about Sam Adams, some of those are actually alright. And yeah, for some reason you see Blue Moon everywhere, even though it's a pathetic immitation. The real stuff, like Hoegaarden Witbier, is not nearly as widely available.

Well yeah, but no more than any kind of wave. Sound is "just an effect of something" also.

You just have to find a bar that understand beer, too. They're out there. Although I really don't understand what Americans' problem is with producing non-ass-beer in significant quantities. Even the British, home of possibly the world's blandest cuisine, are far superior in that regard. Bass, not ass, is my motto.

Maybe it will be something like the European colonization of, well, everywhere else friom the 15th-19th centuries, except without the particular absurdity of there already being people living there. At first there will be ridiculous agreements between superpowers (Spain and Portugal dividing the world in half.... US and Russia? China and India?), which can't be enforced and so other powers make claims as well. Maybe there will be fighting, but doubtful, because any power great enough to establish a Martian colony has to much to lose by directly fighting another such power (the lesson of the 20th century). It'll all come to naught, though, when a couple centuries down the line the colonies start declaring their independence.

I think everybody misunderstood what I was trying to say way back in post #14. The primary arguments in this thread seem to be going right past each other without noticing. One side says the U.S. governments actions are contrary to the spirit of a liberal democracy. The other side says they're a necessary pragmatism under the circumstances. I don't see why both statements can't be accurate. Being a global superpower and staying that way comes with a hefty price.

I find the best response to bad jokes is to pretend not to understand them, and make the teller get embarrassed and frustrated as he has to explain them.

Ok, why is THIS number interesting? 2 ANSWER: [hide]It's the loneliest number since the number one.[/hide]

CDarwin, I think you misread post #6 to be saying the opposite of what it was. You and geoguy are saying the same thing, and he did NOT say it incorrectly. I don't really understand the confusion, particularly concering the text you yourself quoted...?

Ignatius Reilly lives! Seriously, though, your ineloquence is staggering. Luckily for you, I'm fluent in pretentious twit. Obviously, extraterrestrial life is still entirely hypothetical. There have been numerous attempts to estimate the plausibility of such (see the Drake Equation), but ultimately it boils down to something like, "It happened here, and the universe is more vast than we can possibly conceive (and may be infinite), so it must be staggeringly unlikely that we are alone." Obviously, that's a very intuitive statement, but it kind of has to be. For one thing, "life" is not a clearly defined phenomenon. "Self-replicating pockets of localized negative entropy" might be one such definition, albeit a rather unsatisfying one. More intuitively, life might be a lot like pornography: we can't define it, but we'll know it when we see it. How? Because it reminds us of ourselves, I suppose.

No, not me. You: "I am using the definition of Christian found in the Apostles and Nicean Creeds." Although honestly, that seems like a pretty good definition as far as I'm concerned. (Or at least, better than one that requires that you have to believe in evolution in order to be Christian!) They're not Christians? Certainly THEY would disagree. Again, just look at the creeds. And look at the fact that everyone but the vaguest of "Christians" have more beliefs beyond that. Are Catholics non-Christian, too? You're being silly. Yup. And believing the Bible satisfies the creeds. What beliefs?

Everything except "nearly all." Neither.