Phi for All

I think many people try to stitch together the random pieces they hear from folks like Lazar. And when you try to make sense out of something that way, you fill in the gaps with what you know, so it comes off sounding pretty feasible. You "figure it out" and it seems to make sense, but only to you. I actually think this is part of why people who should know better justify some of the claims Trump makes. They hear his hopscotch talk, fill in the weird gaps with what they know, and suddenly they think he may know what he's talking about.

I think you misunderstand skepticism. It's not a fence one sits on constantly. It's a brief stopover on the way to deciding how trustworthy a specific bit of information is. I don't approach everything skeptically, but extraordinary claims need to be investigated. That kind of skepticism drives a person to dig as deeply as they need to to satisfy "the nature of knowledge". My outlook is that people like Lazar will NEVER offer meaningful contributions to science by starting with flawed premises, so I'm not rejecting his ideas simply because they involve aliens. Joseph Newman initially persuaded many folks that he'd made a breakthrough in physics by combining a gyroscope with an inductor in a novel way. His claims of overunity through the manipulation of an abnormally large EM field sounded like just the kind of serendipitous accident all inventors dream of, and his carny pitch was perfect until the evidence failed to hold up. Even he couldn't recreate his original design, and he claimed he couldn't let anyone examine it because the USPTO denied his patent. He had an answer for everything except his poor methodology and his basic misunderstandings. He drove a car with his engine in it around stadiums full of people, but in the end none of that amounted to an ounce of real evidence.

Nothing is ever "definitively provable", not in science, but that's not the point. The claim, anyone's claim, has to have something reasonably persuasive about it to start with, and also avoid basic mistakes along the way. A lack of reason coupled with misunderstandings and a lack of supporting evidence means I can safely ignore this, and not have to consider it just because it's not necessarily untrue.

Do you have any current funding figures to share? Otherwise, aren't you assuming funding is not enough based on the fact that you still age? Why assume there's not enough interest in a "fountain of youth"? Also, I don't see how anyone could give you any accurate timeline based on "Let's spend $1000/person on this". I would imagine funding is not the biggest problem with extending life.

! Moderator Note I'm ordering a closure on this one for sanitary reasons, because it's starting to smell funny.

! Moderator Note This is off-topic for the thread, too political for this section, and conspiracy isn't an argument in good faith. No more of this, please.

No evidence does NOT equal "ruling them out". You need evidence that refutes them, not a lack of such. Your reasoning is incorrect, and it's NOT a semantics quibble. It's basic methodology.

! Moderator Note A picture is worth a thousand words in any language. Please draw this and post it. It should help the discussion immensely.

! Moderator Note Discussion of promising studies is well within our scope as a science forum, but we DO NOT ALLOW posts offering medical advice here. Please STOP making any recommendations regarding what any individual should or shouldn't do with regard to their healthcare (especially concerning medication), or the thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note This is the Biology section. Questions like these regarding a creator are inappropriate here. Please stick to the relevant science in mainstream sections.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. To make assertions like this, you need supportive evidence. Nobody is interested in opinions claimed as fact. I'm allowing you to keep the link to your video since your topic can be discussed without it, but please don't use videos to support your claims. It's easier to quote the written word. More rigor, please. If you make an extraordinary claim like "The role of the United States is ONLY the technological development of the planet". please explain why you believe this. Persuade us, convince us of the validity of your claims. Otherwise, there's nothing here to discuss.

! Moderator Note Hijack re classical questions has been split off to here.

Oh please explain, and list the other ways. I'm predicting you don't "prove" anything. But first, give us your definition of "star".

As if there aren't enough things. You're speculating on something far-fetched that hasn't happened, and concluding humanity dies out within a century?

It's not really a discussion if you just try to claim the things you make up are facts. It's also not reasonable to redefine words that already have a known and well-used meaning, and then expect anyone to know what you're talking about. And doubling down on your ignorance, instead of trying to explain yourself or ask some questions about the areas where your understanding is lacking, that's just preaching. This is a science discussion forum. You wasted your best chance to explain and support what you're talking about.

If you want to bring in ALL the top virus experts, we should probably start a new thread. 🙄

And just like that, he gets his travel bans. Expect him to pursue funding for the new Corona Wall.

I don't think so either. I don't think there's anything about a public approach that inherently stifles innovation either. As you've mentioned, there are things we understand now that we'd never know if we'd left it up to private entities and the market. Things that are vital but not profitable in and of themselves. I also think that the kind of competition fostered by a socialistic approach, being less greed-oriented, is more likely to produce positive results. Competition, like pride and patriotism, is healthy only in the right ratio and spirit.

I don't see it as a formal division between capitalism and socialism. I think socialistic endeavors can include capitalistic partners, as long as the requirements for profit aren't allowed to creep into or negatively affect the public benefit goals. I see it more like you just need to keep washing your hands regularly to avoid infection. Capitalism is about competition, whereas socialism is about cooperation. I think the former is more susceptible to corruption, which I generally define as "money buying things it's not supposed to".

I agree. Our goal here is understanding rather than winning anything, and I prefer this style of social media. So far, I think everyone involved can agree that a thoughtful calibration of private and public/state ownership is the best way to ensure that all are properly motivated and compensated in our society. The right tool for the right job is practically a universal human tenet. And it sounds like the concept that money isn't always the prime motivator is getting some footing here as well. If that's true, I'd like to continue to explore how the military can be maintained as a socialistic institution while removing/re-calibrating the most toxic influences of the private military industrial establishment. Is there a way to have a defense force that does its job first, where the profits for the private contractor happen but aren't the priority? Military enlistees are obviously not money-motivated, except the ones who're just using the free training as a stepping stone to private soldiering. Most serve for honor, tradition, liberty, or another of our highest ideals. And for every combat-capable person who joins for those ideals instead of money, I would expect to see ten more people who'd be willing to do something other than hold a rifle to uphold those same ideals. Can't people like that be paid to serve in defense without working for a private contractor who needs to make folks rich first, then make weapons? Imagine a contest to make the ultimate weapon for the average soldier. A capitalistic approach is going to focus on a rifle that's easily replaceable, easy to make, has ammunition that needs to be stocked regularly, and requires the least training to use and support. A socialistic approach might actually consider a solar rechargeable laser rifle made like an old Ma Bell telephone that never dies.

Don't most private companies hold the patents their employees "innovate" for them? I think in most cases, the innovator is motivated more by making the C suite and the shareholders rich. Iirc, the guy who invented Teflon for the DuPonts worked for them for 40 years. He got promotions and such, but his discovery made others rich.

And yet their freedom is probably their #1 motivator at this point.

I'll ask again then. Don't you think there's a way for a.gov program to stay competitive without focusing on making anyone rich? Many studies have shown money is rarely the #1 motivator of people.

And conversely, if you want shady dealings and questionable moral responsibility, you go to a private mercenary group like Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi. It's assumed they have superior training simply because they aren't part of the government, and I guess they must be worth the $700-800 per day average pay. I wonder what a US soldier costs per day when you factor in training?

So perhaps a .gov defense industry could find a way to compete with itself to generate innovation without requiring a profit? These big mergers are a different headache (and a different topic, for sure).