Phi for All

A broad, emotional response lacking all nuance, that points out why so many people don't bother with the science. It's much easier to convert the world into good and evil, and paint it black and white. If you don't acknowledge that we raise many animals in sheltered lives for the purpose of knowledge or food or fibers, if you don't insist that these necessary means be performed as humanely as possible, then you're not honoring the sacrifices they make to advance human knowledge. By seeing yourself as only more important, you miss the fact that all life on this planet is interconnected, and that when we know more about one part, it can help with many other parts. I think you're demeaning the necessary sacrifice by making it all about our importance. The bond between humans and the animals we domesticate to make life better is an old one. From dogs to guard us, to canaries in coal mines, to lab rabbits being dosed with chemicals people will eventually use, these animals either wouldn't exist at all or would be living reduced and more dangerous lives in the wild. I know this seems more "natural" to many, but again, I think this is purely an emotional response. Where do you draw the necessary line in that argument? Should we stop raising pets because they should be out in the wild? Should we stop forcing dogs to lead blind people around? Better knowledge is the key to reducing animal testing, not emotional knee-jerks. We don't use canaries in coal mines anymore, because we figured out better ways. If we stay reasonable, we can probably figure out how to reduce harmful testing as well.

It's easy to disagree with what someone has said when you change what they said. I agree with Delta1212, it's different knowledge, better only because its patterns fit our modern world better. I can change a hose on a modern IC engine, but I'd struggle with the best way to bring down a wild boar and keep my hunters safe at the same time. In the same vein, a veteran modern farmer is going to know a whole lot more about all the nuances of raising crops and animal husbandry than a physicist would. If it came down to which one should feed the town, who would you put in charge?

I used the word disgusting not to describe your belief (obvious Strawman), but to describe the intellectual practice of engaging in discussion about a subject when you have absolutely no intention of allowing any rational thoughts from that discussion to affect what you believe. Appalling and purposeless are other good words, and there are lots of them, but I chose disgusting because of the brief ignorance contained in the words "He exist [sic] period". That's not part of a conversation. That's part of a sermon. I find that kind of close-mindedness disgusting on a science site.

One in several tens of billions of humans? That's a rather disgusting way of putting it, imo. For a forum dedicated to discussion, that is. Fits right in with some of the preachy sites I try to avoid, though.

Ask ANY physicist? Or only a TRUE physicist?

I mean that mowing wet grass isn't preferable to mowing dry grass. It takes longer, makes a bigger mess, and could be bad for your mower. The thunderstorm gives John the excuse to postpone the mowing, but the BBQ makes it imperative that he get it done regardless. Let's substitute a different reality. W = lottery win, X = fixing the refrigerator, Y = bill collector arrives. Bob is supposed to fix the refrigerator (X), but he learns he won a small lottery and can now buy a new one, and uses this as an excuse not to fix the old one. Then a bill collector magically shows up demanding payment on past due bills (Y), which negates using W as an excuse not to do X (because the lottery wasn't enough to pay the bills and buy a new refrigerator). Bob tells the bill collector he has to fix the refrigerator ("All that food might go bad!") before he can think about paying those past bills. So again, no real logical fallacy here, just a guy who is using an excuse to avoid doing something he should have done before.

The BBQ negates the thunderstorm as an excuse not to mow. I wasn't expecting it to negate the storm itself. Why do you think everything that makes no sense is based on a logical fallacy?

You claimed that any physicist would support your idea, but that was wrong. Now you're calling professional physicists "stupid" because they don't support you? So far, everyone here has been very civil and helpful in trying to show you some knowledge. Please stop making this personal, and you'll see that people here are criticizing your idea, not you.

I don't think it's a logical fallacy. I think the court case is just wrong. No new charges are being added, the details of the only charge are being amended, and should require the defendant to enter his plea as soon as the new details are available. In the first example, let's plunk some reality into those variables. W = big thundershower, X = mowing the lawn, Y = afternoon BBQ party. John uses the rains as an excuse not to mow the lawn at the residence his company will be catering for today. When John's boss tells him he needs to set up the chairs and tables for the guests, John tells her he needs to mow the lawn before he can even think about setting up the back yard for a party. I don't see the problem, or the fallacy. John isn't avoiding work, he just doesn't want to set up chairs he'll have to move in order to cut the grass. If this isn't an example of what you mean, please provide your own reality.

... no more extreme discomfort, no more risks (like falling) that affect both mom and baby, no more morning sickness, no more wild cravings, no more maternity leave, no more clothes that don't fit, and no more abstinence from alcohol. Yes, it would sell by the millions. OTOH, no more feeling your child move, no more physical bond between mother and child, no more maternity leave, no more pampering of the mother (which I think builds a stronger bond between spouses), and no more "patience testing" (which is what I call the simultaneous growth of your new baby and your ability to cope with the changes the new baby brings to your body and lives). Will the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

... and a surfactant to reduce the surface tension of the water.

! Moderator Note A thread aimed at turning this into an actual project has been opened here. Discuss the technology in the current thread, but if you think you could help put specific ideas to work on the project, then join the discussion there.

! Moderator Note I'm going to allow this as a separate thread on the same subject, but only project-related posts can stay here. Please read this thread on Air Treks for ideas, and please keep the discussion here focused on the technology as a project. Please take some time to figure out how multiple people in different parts of the world can accomplish any goals you might set out. The reason nothing has ever come of these discussions is that everyone has ideas, most have some knowledge of how individual parts might work, but nobody wants to do any actual work. Keep in mind you're attempting to build something from fiction. It may be possible with current technology, or it may not. Cell phones started out as fiction, too, and it took 30 years before Leonard Nimoy had a communicator like the ones on Star Trek. Good luck. Any project managers out there?

I don't think you can say that "people who enjoy doing bad things to others never get punished". It happens often, within statistical parameters, according to the local laws and mores. Luck ends up also within statistical parameters. Things happen to people and there are usually many variables, all quantifiable, no need for any supernatural influence. If you don't believe in Karma or God, then you should also stop believing in luck and a complete lack of justice. If you don't believe in Karma or God, believe that there are humans who share your sense of justice and fair play, your love of goodness and compassion. Don't paint all of humanity with such broad brushstrokes, and you'll find a decent mix of decent people within a decent range of where you live. Within statistical parameters, of course.

You would be freeing up so many niches in the environment by killing off all the animals and most of the plants (the ones that rely on insects to pollinate). While I think the mechanisms to evolve movement exists, I think plants might find easier ways to react to the new selective pressures in an environment without animals. Movement is pretty costly for plants, I would imagine. I think this would become a question of whether plant life would be able to use this head-start to gain supremacy before the single cell organisms stumble on the key to multicellular complexity. Would having plants around already in such complex forms shorten the time bacteria could form animal life again? Or would plants have a billion years to take over?

! Moderator Note Please don't EVER delete your OP like that again. Thread closed, sorry to future readers who might have learned something, if they knew what the question was. .

! Moderator Note Moved from Theoretical Physics to Science News.

I don't see the bad judgement on the part of the police in your story. Whether or not the man had been drinking, the evidence they had to go on was beer cans on the floor and a man unresponsive in his car, blocking traffic. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "ungentle". Police shouldn't be mishandling anybody. I didn't offer contempt. I offered a judgement that this man shouldn't drive a car. I don't care if he's drunk or just sick, he shouldn't drive. That's a negative judgement, but it's not an unethical one.

Mus-eums?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-32621595

Ordinarily, I'd say a whole bunch of smart folks trying to work out problems never faced before is a great recipe for progress, but this obviously affects everyone who sits underneath all that equipment up there. It's an enormous amount of space up there, but it becomes very small when you're trying to keep everything from crashing into each other. There aren't a lot of policies that cover debris, which is one of our problems now. If your satellite knocks a non-essential piece off my satellite, but that piece goes on to impact with a third party's satellite, am I responsible or are you? I'd hate to see red tape cripple these entrepreneurial efforts, but at least there are channels for sound policy through the countries with space programs. Knowing that private enterprise needs regulation here on Earth, doesn't it seem smart to increase that regulation for policies that encompass the whole world and beyond?

! Moderator Note Zet, by creating this account to hold discussions with your mikehanson account, you're in violation of our rules on sockpuppetry. You can only have one account here. Please PM me and explain why this was necessary. Don't discuss it off-topic here.

I consider this practice deceitful. It's one thing to have questions about mainstream science, but if someone claims to be skeptical about a mainstream explanation but they're perfectly fine offering up something unsupported they came up with on their own, I think they should be taken out back and shot (potato gun, of course). It's hypocritical in many ways. You shouldn't claim to be skeptical about something if you don't intend to do the research to dispel or confirm your doubts. Skepticism should be an active behavior, not a passive one.

I read a great article about space policy I wanted to discuss. Here's the link to the article by Dave Baiocchi and William Welser IV: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/space/2015-04-20/democratization-space In overview, space exploration has, in the past, been the domain of major states. As technology continues to find ways to make sending satellites and other vehicles more affordable, private companies are laying plans to increase the number of launches and vehicles dramatically. But right now, space policy is still largely non-existent, and certainly isn't geared up for the massive efforts private enterprise has in mind. Right now, the Outer Space Treaty loosely governs states involved in space projects. It says that space should be free for exploration to any State. But with all these new players poised to multiply the number of satellites in orbit, many new questions arise that weren't planned for when the treaty was adopted in 1967. And there really isn't better policy available now, so it's clear that we need a more effective democratization of space before too many more Kickstarter projects leave the launch pad. As the article points out, how do you keep the players honest when the same cheap tech can map weather patterns AND spy on troop movements? Is it in our best interests to let wild entrepreneurial efforts fuel a pioneering movement that could result in countless benefits, or is space exploration something we need to control as much as we can, limiting who and what leaves the planet, and what's circling around above us? Who decides?

But judgement is always contextual. If I see a man stagger out of a bar at 10 am, I could certainly judge him negatively with regard to whether he should operate a motor vehicle or not. It might be unethical to judge him to be a bad person in that same context.