MolotovCocktail

I did not say that! What I said: And I have already explained why it our current methods are unsustainable. I do agree that there are many methods out there that are sustainable and will do little damage to the surrounding environment. The current producers of food, agro-business (e.g. Tyson Foods, etc.), are not utilizing any of those methods. That there is the big concern.

I know this seems a little silly, but if you look at this article it has been seriously considered. This feat has been proposed as a way to save the Earth from the Sun a billion years down the road. Here is an excerpt from the article: So, what do you guys think? A way to avoid the ultimate fate?

I've been thinking about getting a Mac, but I'm wondering what computer software is compatible with the OS. I know you can download some patch or software that would allow you to install Microsoft based programs such as Word, but are the computer programs or games that you see in a store compatible with the OS as well?

The whole point of my first post was that our method of agriculture is not sustainable. Yes our intelligence and technology has enabled us to more efficiently grow lots of food, but our current methods are destroying our environment and wasting lots of resources, many of which are non-renewable. If we want to continue to maintain our standard of living and ensure our survival we have to adopt more sustainable methods of agriculture.

yeah, that is unfortunate. That's why I don't really do any chores around the house:-p.

Silicon can make chains that are just as long and complex as carbon. I think the issue with silicon is the stability of the chains and compounds though. But on some other planets the conditions may be different.

My Firefox blocks out those kind of ads, so I don't have to worry about them

A small battle suit would probably be more efficient since they wouldn't have to be big but still have a great deal of firepower and would be much safer and easier to use for the human operator. I could see Gundam's as viable if it was remote controlled. This would eliminate the need for life-support and would eliminate the hazards that would result from operation. Plus they would be far more cost-effective that way.

If you mean variety as in number of flavors, preparation of food, then yes there is more variety in that respect. When I talk about variety I'm talking about genetic and biological diversity of our food. First off, a lot of foods we eat come from gigantic mono-cultures and this is bad because there is no genetic diversity among our crops, meaning that it is ecologically frail. Also, as I stated before, a lot of the food we eat or the juices we drink are made from basically the same ingredients. To prove my point, consider two completely different types of food: Ketchup and cereal. Ingredients of Heinz Brand Ketchup: Tomato Concentrate made from red ripe tomatoes (Whatever that means...), Distilled Vinegar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Salt, Spice, Onion Powder (made from salt), Natural Flavoring (which is artificial by the way) Ingredients of Cheerios: Whole Grain Oats, Modified Corn Starch, Sugar, Oat Bran, Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Oat Fiber, Tripotassium Phosphate, Corn Starch, Wheat Starch, Vitamin E to preserve freshness. You notice how there is corn and salt in these seemingly unrelated and "diverse" food produce here. Aside from corn, another big ingredient that is used in our food is wheat. So basically, a lot of our food is made from the same ingredients. The vegetables and fruits that come out of the supermarket most likely came from mono-cultures that were loaded with pesticides. I'm not even going to get into what the food in fast food joints are made of; in Taco Bell for example the meat is a lower grade than dog food. Yeah, but this is due mostly to the fact that our sanitation and medical care has greatly advanced.

Totally agree with you here. Another thing that I found wrong with the article is that it doesn't really delve deeply into the issues of ecological changes that may result from GW. For example, while GW does increase crop yields, it also increases the number of pests that will come and damage those fields. Could you provide us an example of a time when they did this?

Can't say that I agree with you there. As SkepticLance pointed out, humans do have instincts and they are a powerful influence on human behavior (e.g. the sex drive). This I agree with. Society does have a big impact on how humans behave (e.g. middle school cliques). However, there is an idea that is going around that the drive to learn, gain knowledge, and reason could also be instinctual because it is inherent in all humans. It is the same with the need to "fit in" in social situations, so while society does influence what behavior is learned, humans do that out of the need to socialize and cooperate with one another.

Well, before you dismiss my last response as "pop psychology", the reason I brought up serial killers is because they are one group of people who kill because of their abnormal psychology. It is one of the biggest areas of research and it has helped us better understand the relationship between environmental and physiological influences on human behavior. Well, it depends what you mean by inbuilt instinct, because human beings have some instincts that evolved independently over tens of millions of years, such as the sex drive. And there is evidence that our behavior is evolving even now. An example of behavioral (and physiological) evolution since the agricultural revolution is the number of meals and food we now eat and when we do, compared to our hunter-gatherer ancestors: "In contrast, most of us are descendants of people who survived the agricultural revolution. We have adapted to abundant food, large amounts of sugar, and regular mealtimes by increasing the number of active insulin receptors on our cells. As a result, most of us do not develop diabetes. But if we were ever forced to go back to hunting and gathering, most of us would probably do very badly--only consider the agonies that we go through when we skip a meal." SOURCE: Willis, 1992, Discover Magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/1992/aug/hashumanevolutio95) Not sure if I completely agree with you here. First of all, people may murder within a tribe as a way to eliminate rivals or kill a traitor, which could be good or bad for survival depending on the circumstances. Also, there is the possibility that this sort of behavior may have been around even before humans existed. Chimpanzees and Gorillas, both of which are primates like humans, are also known to commit murder. Also, many species of ants also exhibit the tendency to go to war and commit murder. Well, there could be a number of reasons for this, but I think in the case of murder within a family, that is probably because of the will to survive or because of mental illness. Abused women have been documented to kill their abusive husbands, and its the same with abused children of parents. Many children and other people who have been abused develop personality disorders and this probably plays a part in their motivation for murder.

Thanks for all of your help guys.

*sigh* well, while you guys wait for his return, I'm going to update my anti-virus software...

I don't have a single incandescent light bulb in my house. We got rid of those several years ago. I have compact fluorescents in my house, and some LED's. I think the newer bulbs that are out there use up less energy in their total lifespan than the incadescent ones and can last up to 10 times longer. I don't remember the last time I had to replace one of the bulbs (I think maybe back in December), so I guess thats a good thing.

Well, there are a wide variety of reasons why someone would kill, ranging from necessity to just sheer pleasure. You should take a look at some criminal profiles of serial killers. As creepy as it is, most of those people kill because they either derive some sort of sexual pleasure from it (as did BTK), and/or because they liked the attention they got from it (e.g. watching their crimes on the news). Also, many serial killers are very dedicated to their killing sprees, and some consider their victims as "projects".

So, are we going to lock this thread now? This thread is just really retarted and pointless.

Not really. What they are saying was that there was no point to the thread and that the author of this thread did not leave us anything to discuss. He did this multiple times as far as I am reading. This is a discussion forum, not a textbook or a thesis.

Good point there. When one is in a relaxed state I can see how they may be more prone to procrastination (e.g. Couch Potatoes, Internet Browsing, etc.) Exercize certainly helps, but I'm wondering if the environment has something to do with it as well. For example, in a quiet place such as a bedroom or even out in the open field one is more prone to a relaxed state of mind then, say, an office. However people in an office will still procrastinate, and they are certainly not in a relaxed state of mind.

Yeah, but there are also high profile politicians that support those who say that Intelligent Design should be kept out of the science classroom. The Judges also back them up as well because it is religion. Yeah' date=' this is very true. Most people usually have a very little understanding of science. It's not just the services and natural phenomena that they are ignorant of, but also on how they are made and/or how they/it works in the first place. Ignorance shows especially when people talk of environmental issues, or just nature in general (e.g. the stereotypical "green and trees" picture). Haha, sucks for you! I have a water well so my water is free . ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, religious beliefs were used to justify atrocities and continue to be perfect for justifications for horrid actions to this day. It isn't just evolution that was used in this manner. And I'm not sure how you got the idea that communism was based on evolution.

I got a high score of 7,654. You really have to be quick witted for this.

The bartender Guinan says this after she tells Picard some info about the Borg in the "Q Who?" Here is an exact quote I found on the Wiki: "Over thousands of centuries, the Borg have encountered and assimilated thousands of species (as attested by Guinan and the Borg Queen). However, little information regarding the true origin of the Borg millennia ago has been divulged in Star Trek canon. In Star Trek: First Contact, the Borg Queen merely states that the Borg were once much like humanity, "flawed and weak," but gradually developed into a partially synthetic species in an ongoing attempt to evolve and perfect themselves." SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_%28Star_Trek%29 Gotta love wikipedia! The Brunali hid most their technology and focused on genetic engineering so that it could protect itself against the Borg. And there isn't really a lot of information that was given about the Wysanti or the Norcadians. True... Well, I never really watched too much of the Voyager series, so I'll take your word for it. But when they were first introduced and in later episodes and movies they were portrayed as being able to travel through time, counter every weapon and defense known to the Federation, regenerate, apparently having complete knowledge of every race they seem to encounter, etc. If that isn't a demonstration of how much more advanced they are than the humans, then I don't know what is. Yeah, that is true. The Borg were also successfully assimilating the Enterprise E too, until Data tricked the queen and killed her. Yeah, but sending a single ship like that does set itself up for failure because if it is destroyed then it gives time for the race in question to prepare and put up a much stiffer resistance, as opposed to sending a bunch of ships and getting it over with quickly.

My forums: http://www.scienceforums.net obviously http://www.chronicles-network.com for science fiction and fantasy the physics forums, though I'm not there as often as here. and http://www.psychforums.com for talking to other people with PDD's, Bi-Polar and Autism. Gaming Sites: Gamespot.com for talking about games (Not really a forum but you can rate games). http://www.galciv2.com for one of my favorite computer games http://www.mapleglobal.com for the free RPG. http://www.chessclub.com and games.yahoo.com for playing chess

Well, also remember that the story of the Borg is full of plot holes and inconsistencies. In TNG when they were first introduced it was stated that they have been assimilating races for hundreds of thousands of years. Also, the races that were kicking the Borg's asses or could hold them off were more advanced than the humans. It is quite egotistical that a human-led federation is able to be the one that could hold them off or change the outcome in a conflict against the Borg. The Borg are eons ahead of the human race. To give the show credit, the Borg did send only one ship and no matter how advance they are a strategy like that was bound to fail.

Well, if you look at those numbers closely, you will notice that the people who took this were adults, as I had suspected, and that the vast majority of people who believed in literal creationism are the uneducated people (those without the high school diplomas). If those number mean anything, that means that we have to reform our education (Refer to post 4 for more details). And even if the majority of Americans with an education believe that God assisted evolution, does that matter? After all, the theory of evolution does not imply nor does it assert that God doesn't exist. Just because evolution doesn't make a reference to God doesn't mean that it disproves his existance. What you are doing is the Appeal to the Consenquences fallacy. Well, accept for the hardline creationist fanatics, I'm sure they have already compromised for the most part. I know that schools who actually teach intelligent design will usually put it in their philosophy classes instead of the science class (thankfully). This can apply to just about any ideology. This is an Ad Hominem.