Muffin

I think that cloning is A OK. So long as the clone is treated like a regular person, and not labeled by society "a clone". Want to hear something funny? (of course u do) My history class was discussing the ethics of cloning (i think i was the only one to completely think it is ok), and one kid said that cloning would be good to make a huge army of people, all with the pysique of Arnold. Practically everyone thought cloning was in essense, someone walking into a box, and 2 of them walking out. Do you think that mind set is shared with the bulk of ppl, and that is why they think it's wrong?

I don't get it...why doesn't he just tape a little audio player to his arm..why does it have to look like an ear? It would make more sense if it looked like a mouth. Oh, and that image with the mouse is disturbing.

I think that if something is attached to the mother, than it is her prerogative to do with it what she wants. If I want to cut off my hand, who's gonna stop me? Granted, the fetus might be able to survive on its own, and in that case, if the gov't wants to pay for it to be born prematurely, and taken care of, then sent to an orphanage, be my guest. So I think the right to have an abortion ends when the baby can survive outside the mother, in which case the mother still can get rid of it and never see it again, but the doctors just can't kill it. This, however, would eat up alot of gov't money, and there would be alot of messed up kids in the world. Here's a question I have. Lets say I'm pregnant. I'm not gonna say how many months because I'm not sure how much it would matter. Couldn't I just like, punch myself in the stomach, or fall down a few stairs, or run into a wall and bam... miscarriage. This would seem a pretty smart alternative to a partial birth abortion, with the excuse, "i tripped and fell". No inhumane sucking brains out, just good old fashioned "accidental" miscarriage. Would this work? I don't pretend what I'm about to say would happen any time soon, but I propose people having to get permission from the government to have a baby. They must spend tons of money getting kids adopted, and giving welfare to single mothers, and this planet is getting overpopulated anyway... I think only people who can raise good kids should be aloud to have them. Aside from reproduction being a natural right, having a baby is sort of gaining control over a life, something that I think the government should have to approve. That is all...

lol, yeah I guess I'd be n/a as well then... I am against the death penalty as well. It costs more money to carry it out, and your right, it hasn't had an impact on ppl killing other ppl. I'm going to the library today, so i think I'll pick up a copy of Anthem. My dad actually recommended I read it too, lol. And another point about democrats. It seems to me that their whole take on the economy is only to get votes, cuz most ppl are middle class or poor. And their position really goes against protecting minorities (something they do). The rich are a minority, and they shouldn't be taken advantage of or thought of as greedy, just because they have money.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet, but I think that once we understand nerves and can duplicate them, we could build little remote controls, for lamps, computers, cars, or anything really. You just connect the remote to motor nerves, and it'll be internal, so you can't lose it, and you control it by thought. Wouldn't that be sweet? And if we can learn to build sleek jetpacks, we get to fly! no more losing your keys either! You install into the lock something taht will only respod to your remote. What do u all think?

I predict not much change, like..ever. Unless of course you get into genetic engineering, in which case humans could (in that many years) look pretty much however they want. You can probably ask the doctor for 2 heads, one arm and 100 legs. No problem, that'll be 2 billion dollars....yeah. Because, our bio make-up (besides being born with a disease or something) doesn't really equip us better or worse for survival. Maybe someday, only smart, fit, healthy, attractive people will be aloud to have kids. Forced evolution....mauahah.

Hehe, dbz...i am so sick of that show now though, seeing as my brother and dad are obsessed with it. Well, I bet once we fully understand how the brain works and all that (yeah, not for a long while I assume), then we'll be able to monitor all the chemical reactions and electro thingys going on, and right a program to read them, and show things up on the screen, perhaps reading our minds.

rune, that was my first thought, but then I thought....duh, plants.

So, what would you consider yourself? I'd say I'm more a Republican than a Democrat. I support Bush on the war, and the economy (this whole business of the rich having to pay higher percentages than the middle class and poor really annoys me). But, I'm more a liberal when it comes to human rights, like abortion and gay marraige. And I'm a big non-supporter for universal healthcare, and I'm also not for free college. If your a democrat, what primary candidate are you rooting for?

I guess for something to live, it has to be born, grow, and die. For it to stay alive, it would need some kind of energy. Or maybe even a decent definition (for those of you who believe in evolution) would be something that evolves. Or maybe it could be something that reproduces, but I wouldn't really say that, cuz some ppl can't reproduce, but they're alive. (Yes, I know you may be looking at is an a species, but how could it be the definition, if the individual doesn't fit into it.) I think I'll think about this some more, and get back to you. Interesting topic VM. (lol, do ppl call u that? I'm new and it seems like they would.)

It says it right in there. "And once I've covered all the infinitely small sub-distances..." Infinite means never ending, and if they never end how could you get there? Lets say we couldn't move, or we lived in a world without movement (yeah, it's zany but bear with me). Some scientist might proclaim movement impossible, never having seen it. My whole point is that sometimes math conflicts with reality.

hehe, I knew u'd ask that. Ok, one time this one guy got a whole bunch of people in a room and started talking. He said that to move from point A to point B, you must first move halfway to point B, right? If not, you will never get there. So, then once your halfway, you must again, move half way, so you are now 3/4 the distance to point B. Again, move halfway, and again, and again.....but you could never read point B, because numbers can get sooo tiny. And the most you could get was allllmooost there. Well, to disprove that, one of the guys in the room walked up to the front, and then back out the door, disproving everything he'd just said.

I'm new here, and have been browsing through some of the posts, and you all seem really knowledgeable on science! I think that is soo cool! I was just wondering if you were all mostly scientists, or just normal people who like science. I for one, am 16 years old, and in high school.

Perhaps, but mathmatically, movement is impossible, so we know that math and reality are not always the same. I have a really hard time trying to imagine the fourth dimention as a navigatable plane. When we're passing through time, are we really "writing history"? Is it stuck in that state forever? Or maybe it doesn't matter which direction we are moving, and going back in time at the same speed we are now moving forward, would produce the same results. Perhaps it is only the speed at which we travel that counts. I also find it hard to imagine two things co-existing, yet not moving at the same speed through time. Try picturing a bunch of beads on a string. Imagine that we are one of those beads, and that the string is constantly moving through us. There are neighboring beads, or parellel universes, and moving through time would make us end up in one of those places. Maybe the string, or time, is moving at a constant speed. I guess this would contradict the whole, traveling at the speed of light, makes us move faster through time thing, so it's probably not true. But always a possibility. Wow, this subject is so mind boggling, I wonder if I've made any sence at all...lol

I don't think your brain is calculating things while you sleep, to get accurate laws of physics and all that. It can't be, unless you know how to. And I for one, would not know how to do any of that stuff, so my subconcious doesn't know it either. I think you just get used to being pulled down, and the wind having certain effects on things, so in your dreams, often times things will be that way. One time, when I was really little, I remember like being stuck in a dream. I was having some kind of tea party, lol, and I really really wanted to wake up, but couldn't. It was really scary. And often times, in dreams, I'll try to run really fast, or fly or something, and just can't. I get really frustrated, and probably wake up around that time. It's like my legs are moving so slowly and I can't run. Odd. As to the time factor, I heard that dreams were alot faster than real life, and sometimes I'll hit the snooze alarm in the morning before school, and fall back asleep and have a real elaborate dream, half of which I can't remember, between alarms.

The way I see it, the question of whether or not free will exists, is pretty much irrelevant, except for scientific advances and such. Because, for all intensive purposes, free will does exist. Go ahead, try turning around in your chair, or look up at the ceiling. Those are things that you decided to do, whether or not it was bound to happen is irrelevant. I see this as perhaps an excuse people might start to use for their behavior, which would not be taken seriously by anyone, regardless of the truthfullness. And then in turn, the police officer would just say, "well then I was destined to take you to jail." It really just doesn't matter. If no one controls anything, it is pretty much the same as everyone controling everything with free will. We will never be able to change the circumstances. As for God, well, as some famoush Enlightenment scientist said, believing in God is a sort of a risk, but only if you don't. If he exists, you die and go to heaven, and if not, you just die. Of course, I'm paraphrasing... but I remember reading about it in my History book. Personally, sure, I'll prey to God sometimes, but i never go to church, and if asked what my religion is, I just say I dont have one. So I sorta believe in God, like my mindset is that perhaps he exists, and perhaps he doesn't. This subject alot of times scares me to talk or think about, so I try to avoid it.

Ok, this question isn't too terribly scientific, but I guess it might be... I couldn't find any documented evidence on how being hungry at an given moment might disrupt they way you think, to the effect of not being able to focus, making simple mistakes, etc. I think perhaps my making stupid mistakes on math tests could have to do with the fact that it is right before lunch, and I'm often pretty hungry. I figured I'd have a better chance of getting my schedule switched a bit if I had evidence....so, thanks in advance.