Phi for All

From your link (which you should always read first): So they're eating toxic gold chloride (your article misspelled it), a chemical that has very little application, and removing the chlorine to leave Au. Much the same way trees take in CO2, keep the C and leave the O. Now you should research how difficult it is to obtain AuCl3. That plus the cost of the Cupriavidus process should tell you if it will produce profitable gold. It has to be as or less expensive than traditional methods. If not, you're better off with old school. There's a slim possibility of a novelty trend. But you have no real marketing advantage to bacterial gold (bacteria is a tough brand to sell -- we've been fighting it since the old soap days of early radio and TV), the way you would for gold mined from the depths of the sea, or an asteroid. In fact, it's going to seem like you didn't do much to get this gold. I'd pay 5 times what gold is normally worth if I knew it was mined from an asteroid in space. That's some real bragging rights, there. But you put some AuCl3 in a box with some bacteria, and a week later you've got my gold? Sounds like Rumplestiltskin gold to me, so I'd want a discount rather than pay a premium.

When Reagan emptied out the mental health facilities, I think he set the tone for most conservative voters, that people with head problems are scary and not the public's business. I think it has filtered down to many government offices, including law enforcement. Over the years, we've been slowly paying the price for ignorance. It's ridiculous that these officers assumed this prisoner was faking his symptoms, or didn't have a protocol for dealing with a prisoner in such obvious distress. And the protocol they did have, sedate this enormous guy before he injures one of us, was incorrect to use on someone who's having trouble breathing. There's also kind of a nasty Catch-22 going on here. It's similar to what happens in the case of a dog disciplining a human infant that's pulling the dog's tail. The dog trains its puppies to STOP doing a certain action when the dog grabs the puppy's head in its mouth and starts to bite down a bit. The puppy's instinct is to freeze, whereupon the dog lets up on the grip. But a human baby has no such instincts, and when the dog bites to make the behavior STOP, the baby thrashes, making the dog bite harder. It ends badly for both. In much the same way, modern police procedure tells those cops to subdue the prisoner, make him hold still. But how effective is that going to be when the prisoner is saying he can't breathe? It's the hardest thing in the world not to flail when lack of breath makes you panic. And I doubt the police are like the dog, and begin to let up as soon as motion stops. They're going to expect the worst, that this prisoner is just playing possum. I don't think the military angle helped at all. Rather than treating Sgt Brown with more respect because he was actively enlisted, I think all the police saw was a big, dangerous prisoner, highly trained in combat, who was in jail for something he did wrong. There was one allusion to an episode of PTSD the prisoner had that set this all off. I'd like to know what went on there, why that caused things to escalate. Other than a few louder comments, I barely heard anything Brown said. He wasn't as coherent as people usually are when screaming at law enforcement.

Because you came to a science discussion site. Because you posted this as a theory, and imagining isn't what you do in a scientific theory. I think you may not understand what "theory" really means in science. It's not just a "What if this was possible?" statement. A theory is the best you can ever get, the most intensely studied and tested explanations we have to define reality. Theories have mountains of evidence to support them. I think we assumed you came here because you wanted to discuss science in a rigorous manner. There are other sites that welcome imaginative guesswork, but we like evidence to back up our speculations. Even though you didn't answer ANY of my questions, I will answer yours. "Why is it so hard to imagine we will have technology to read and connect minds?" It's not, it's the easiest thing in the world. When I was young, a LOT of people imagined we'd all be driving around in flying cars. It was easy to imagine, easy to see that's where the technology must be leading us. But our imaginations were wrong. Flying cars are completely impractical. Can you truly not see why the same might be true of reading and connecting human minds? The answer to your question is, there are some things we CAN do, but as yet we have no good reason to, or many good reasons not to.

Usually, using this method, by the time you recognize where you went wrong, it's already been explained a million times. And you have to admit that "when I recognize it" is a flaw built into your methodology. Knowing that it will take you a million times being told before you see it, wouldn't it be wiser (and more productive) to give up on your "angle" and investigate the evidence that usually accompanies the million reiterations? There are often times when your questions are answered in links you obviously didn't read. I agree that this is stubborn behavior, but it's NOT the behavior of a skeptic. Skeptics doubt until they dig deeper and satisfy themselves that the explanation is wrong or may be right. They do NOT stubbornly hold onto their "angle" while a million bits of evidence are offered.

! Moderator Note Enochulous' thread on Nerve Gear has been merged with this existing thread on the same subject.

I still think it's weird that humans often make this distinction between artificial and natural using every animal except ourselves as the baseline. Isn't that just doomed to fail every time? Won't that always make everything we can do that other animals can't do unnatural? Why do we place such a curse on our intelligence? Why are humans the only creatures who can do something unnatural? Isn't our medical specialization ability just one of the traits we've developed to help us adapt to the environments we face? We get more of these types of traits because we're smarter, instead of faster, bigger, stronger, meaner, toothier, or better swimmers/flyers. Failing to take this into consideration is unbalancing the equation. On a side note, I did have a discussion recently where a member thought that beavers building dams was unnatural. I'm sure he'd include chimps using sticks to catch termites, but most people wouldn't. By that reasoning, humans should be able to use a fishing pole, or build a thatched hut and still be considered natural. So where is the line between natural and unnatural? When we stop using straw and start building with wood? Or is it when we move to bricks? Why?

Even in the movies, it's rarely the scientist who ignores the cumulative efforts of all the people who turn a great idea into reality. It's almost always the greedy businessperson who owns the patent without understanding any of the science. The members we have who are science professionals all seem to know science doesn't work in a vacuum. Sharing seems to come naturally to you all.

There is always a risk of someone taking your intellectual property, proportionate to how valuable it is. You could write up as much of your idea as possible on paper, and mail it to yourself, so you get a postmarked date on a sealed document. File it away unopened, and it can at least serve as supportive evidence that you had this idea on a certain date. If someone you told after this date tried to steal the idea, you'd then only have to prove you told them. If you want to make that easy in court, get them to sign a non-disclosure agreement first. If you're wanting to share speculative physics ideas with us here, we have the Speculations section, with special rules. Sharing physics ideas requires evidence to back up any assertions you make, otherwise it's just guesswork, and that's not what we do here. Lots of other sites for guesswork in physics.

I agree. I'm in learning mode most of the time here, and that leaves little room for perceived competition.

I think we're always hoping the light bulb goes off before 100 posts, but we're convinced it won't take 300, until it does and there's still no resolution. And let's not forget that there's a certain ping-pong competition response mechanism that can happen. I should concede your well-thought-out point, but instead I volley back just because it's expected of me and I want to look smart too. I like the idea of experimenting with a thread you'll flag as an example.

You're more patient than most. I see you making the effort to set up your responses so you lead a person to understanding rather than beating them with the Stick of Knowledge. You ask questions rather than pontificate, and perhaps that's what we all need to do more often.

There are some arguments to avoid, we all know that. Creationism vs Evolution is a prime example. When one side tries to argue the science without learning the science, they don't even know what they don't know. If you're involved in a discussion with a person like that, you just have to walk away. The guy who reads three pages in his Relativity textbook, slams it shut, and now claims Einstein is Wrong! is never going to understand why you think he's wrong. If he could have, he'd never have started the thread. I wish people would save the emotion for appropriate situations. It almost always seems to cloud good judgement when applied to science. Some folks previously mentioned have a great deal of knowledge in certain areas, but can't miss an opportunity to take offense at someone else's ignorance, and make it even worse with open hostility. Oddly, I've seen many posts where someone who was right gets hostile about it and ends up making a mistake that gets noticed by others. Anger-clouded judgement is often poor, and sets up poor behavior and actions. Nothing stops a discussion's progress faster than raised defenses. When you know you're right, I think that's the time to be the most civil. Being hostile to someone who fails to understand you is kind of a signal that your position isn't as strong as you think.

Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is most likely correct (I don't like to use the word "true" in science). It gives one a place to start looking, but one shouldn't assume it's correct. Do you mean this world? This world is not infinite, and we're not sure the whole universe is unlimited. Or do you mean the many-worlds interpretation, where all possible alternative events happen in their own universe? That's far from a simple theory. This is a prediction that needs some supportive evidence to be science. Prediction is a powerful tool, but without sound science to back it up, it's just guessing. Or the script for The Matrix. You're making some very generalized assumptions here. Constant fear? Who is constantly afraid of women? The way this reads makes it seem like you're saying if men weren't afraid of women, women would be drawn to other women and we'd all die off. Unbelievably hard to support this, since it's trivially easy to discredit each element of the argument. Perhaps I've misunderstood? There's not a lot of science to comment on here. Bringing up a capital C "Creator" doesn't help, nor does claiming that adaptation proves a higher intelligence. You're assuming right away that a theory of life/existence MUST be simple. This makes sense to you, so you call it logical. The rest seems more like philosophy, or even politics. They don't help your scientific argument because they're so obviously opinion. To add some science in here, we need some clarification. What are "the organic technologies"? Why do you think peace for all is preferable? Isn't it possible that many of the bad things we've done (war) has led to a greater understanding of the good things we're capable of (medicine)? Can you support any of your ideas with evidence we could check? Otherwise, it's all guesswork and you can do that anywhere. Most people come here because they want some science discussion.

If I give what's wrong tacit approval by letting it go, I often don't trust others to see what's wrong. I should, but there are so many levels of knowledge here, it's hard to know who will trust what information. More often, I realize the person I'm talking to is either one of those eternal skeptics, who doubts but never bothers to learn, or one of those folks who is never going to listen because they have a bad reason-to-emotion ratio about the subject. Staff is always worried about intervening too early or too late. The membership is extremely knowledgeable, helpful, and patient, and we hate to remove opportunities for learning by closing a discussion down. We also don't want the membership's time wasted by those who argue just to argue, or want to discuss their guesswork and opinion as science.

Stick some peppers, zucchini, and tomatoes on the branches first, to lure them up there....

Starting the PETA organization was a masterstroke. They have their pet humans in the highest positions of power.

If they eat away at that dam long enough....

I, for one, welcome our new goat overlords with open arms and crossed knees.

OK. Thanks for this.

Wow, I could never justify this type of thinking. You've condemned us all as hypocrites and monsters, and nothing will change your mind. You claim nobody gives a damn, which is more emotional, generalized, hand-wavy guesswork, and it makes you ignore or discount everything that's being done to lessen the cruelty in many necessary processes involving animals. In short, your viewpoint is so black and white as to be worthless. You will never have a world where humans exist but don't use the resources available, and you will never have a world where humans evolve backwards to live primitively (at least not voluntarily). So you sit in guilt, waiting for some cataclysm to force us back into the caves. I know you say you wouldn't like that, but I don't see why else you would adopt such a bleak outlook about humans. The first sentence is false. The second sentence is proof of that, since medicine isn't unnatural (neither is science and technology, the other two things you mention in post #516). The third sentence shows you don't understand that nothing on the planet is unnatural, unless you define what humans do as outside nature. Yours is the real monstrous position, you know. You're saying that nobody cares, and that's just the way it is, so we should just admit it. Nothing would EVER get better if we all thought this way. Thank goodness we don't, because laws on the treatment of animals have continually gotten stronger over the last 100 years. Like many things, still not perfect, but better than the nothing your stance would leave us with. I couldn't deal with people if I truly felt the way you do about them.

I don't follow this part. Nothing changed, except we went from thinking we picked our own hobby to having it picked for us by our body's capabilities. I don't see where we became androids. As Klaynos mentioned, gliders don't require the same kind of license, and are cheaper to learn how to fly. Perhaps the local club you mentioned has a certified Flight Instructor for gliders that would like to barter some time on a yacht....

Are the licenses to fly a yacht cheaper? I'm sorry the OP got a negative rep point. I don't like to see that. I'm not a "There are no stupid questions" kind of guy, but I think people shouldn't get dinged for their initial attempt to start a conversation. But this: These are assumptions being asserted as fact. IMO, I think what a person does for a living is often the most important thing discussed. But I'm basing this on anecdotal evidence and personal observation, so there's no way I'm asserting this to be a fact. I just observe it more often among the people I know.

! Moderator Note Hoola will be opening another thread to discuss this so it doesn't interfere with the discussion about converting a space heater. Please don't bring up this merchandise here.

More misplaced emotion, and since you're basing your beliefs on it, it's highly unlikely any reasonableness on my part will change your mind. You're purposely painting an unrealistic picture of humans living like other animals, completely against the evolutionary pressures that helped us get to our present stage of development. You would have us WASTE everything that evolutionary intelligence has allowed us to create because you think medicine is unnatural. It seems you've bought into the whole concept of humans as unnatural animals. Unbelievably depressing and selfish, imo. While you're content to live in either hypocrisy, guilt, or primitive conditions, a lot of us realize the gift of high intelligence represents huge potential as well as huge dangers and massive responsibilities. If we embrace your thinking, we'll never get off this planet, and everything about Earth will die when the sun goes red giant. If there is any pattern or plan for human existence, I think it's safe to say we're the only creatures capable of leaving Earth and taking as many of our fellow creatures with us as possible.

You have a LOT of assertions like this, using them as the basic premise for your idea. You need to back these up with some evidence. This just sounds like you made it up. How are you quantifying that?