Phi for All

Aren't you making my point here? Ignorance would leave you without the data to make informed decisions, like how safe is safe enough. Only by removing ignorance do you get the kind of information you need, information that only the most intelligent species could ever benefit from. If I find a home for my family, I want to know as much as I can about it so I can take appropriate measures for safety. I know I can't protect them from everything, but removing ignorance so I can know as much about my home as possible gives me the best chance to protect them. If I know there's a high school nearby, I might put some extra locks on the doors and windows. If there are coyotes in the area, I'll be extra vigilant about when I let my small dog outside. It's not about being as safe as possible all the time, it's about knowing when it's appropriate to take different measures to increase safety. This seems so basic to me. If you don't know there's angry bees in the box, you're most likely going to do what you normally do with boxes. I didn't understand this. Please reiterate. Let's further assume there's no way for me to get my family offplanet. And that it will mean total destruction, no chance of weathering it out underground and helping the species survive. We're all going to die, and I'm the only one who knows it. How much time is left? I'm assuming not much, since more time might mean at least a chance of escape. If it's a matter of weeks, I'd tell my family and friends, at least the ones who feel as I do about ignorance. Sell off some assets and book a world cruise with the folks I love best. Then I'd proceed to absorb all the beauty and love and laughter Earth has to offer before it all goes away. Without that knowledge, I'd otherwise be doing too much cleaning and lawn mowing and not making enough opportunities for intelligent bliss. We know sound was made because that's what happens when energy is released in this way. There's nothing else in reality that suggests it would be any different if nobody was there.

The tree falling in the forest still creates the sensory stimulation that receptors like ears and eyes and noses can detect, even if those detectors aren't present. The molecules that surround an object that find their way into your nose so you can detect them with your olfactory sense don't exist only in your consciousness, they're really there. If heat doesn't exist but requires a tactile element in order to be felt, why does non-conscious iron react to heat?

The key is mass production. The first of any product is always hideously expensive, because all the startup, R&D and manufacturing costs are totaled against that first burger. And more research can help lower the costs further. Imagine using half the land we use now for livestock grazing and habitation, and instead have large scale cultured meat farms that can eventually grow you a perfect filet that was never stalked, hunted or slaughtered, perhaps with other engineered benefits that might even tempt EdEarl to buy some steak knives. You've removed most of my objections, so why not? The Runner would probably be too stringy though, and I'm not into anything bloated. Perhaps this could be used to reduce consumption of tiger penises and shark fins. If you really want to absorb the power from your food, how about some POTUS chops or perhaps Queen Elizabeth London Broil? Or maybe we go for the vendetta angle. Roast Leg of Insurance Salesman might be especially satisfying after your claim gets denied. Braised Tongue of Smart-Mouthed Co-Worker would be a delicacy. I think "Eat me!" would be a good slogan for my new cultured human meat company.

We're in a phase globally where our populations require us to adopt these procedures. I don't like them but they're necessary if we want the best protein sources. Being able to grow our own meat will be a huge step towards sustainable methods, but I also wonder how long species like cows and pigs will be around without us to husband them.

Absolutely not! Growing meat will eventually remove the major concerns of keeping livestock for consumption, and hopefully some day allow us to eat only the best tasting meats free of additives and process parts. In addition, this will allow us to take some high-quality protein with us into space.

I myself have gotten them. It harms the respectability of those of us who truly are Nigerian princes with large sums of money to bring to your country if only I could find a helpful citizen to help me escape oppression and share in my good fortune.

! Moderator Note Off-topic hijack posts split to here.

Is this for a homework assignment?

It's always good to hear some sweet in the Suggestions, Comments and Support section. Thanks to all for spending your time here, collaborating and discussing and helping to build this learning community. Thanks Cap'n, Sayonara and dave for the extra energy that keeps us in perpetual motion and half a step ahead of the IAEA. Thanks, hypervalent_iodine, for even considering my suggestion to pose for the SFN calendar in your lab coat. And thanks, Lightmeow, your support and contributions.

Wow. The censors have struck. Tremble, all ye mortals. For someone who's signature objects to no-discussion "codes", your style is very preachy, prohibiting the discussion you claim to want. People keep asking you for more than just your opinion, and you're ignoring them. You state things as fact yet have nothing convincing to support them. If you're asked to leave here, it will be for that, not because you're being censored.

! Moderator Note This is preaching, not an opening post for discussion. It can be assumed that anyone who disagrees with what you claim here will just get more of the same proselytizing. Preaching is against the rules you agreed to when you joined. Please formulate thread openers to give an opportunity for productive discussion. This style is more suited to blogging. Thread closed.

You're taking your own metaphor too literally. By defining "gods" as anyone/anything we have great adoration for, or follow (figuratively, as in "maintain an avid interest in") closely, you've removed any real meaning the word has. Many of my more religious family members would be greatly offended at your attempt to conflate religious figures with entertainment figures. Of course, the Catholics have had trading cards for the saints for years, but I think even they would draw the line at calling Felix Hernandez a god.

I'm completely serious. We're the only species with a chance of making it off planet, and I think we'll only invest in space exploration if the pressure to do so outweighs the expense. If we have more to live for, perhaps we'll respect life more. Again, education seems to be the key to a more informed, effective and collaborative human population capable of exploiting their full potential.

Agreed. All part of my Master Plan. And step one is doing this: Living young for a long time would suck without an education. We'll need smart people to get us off planet.

! Moderator Note Closed, on the authority of the Department of Redundancy Department.

! Moderator Note I know you'll be good for goodness' sake and start your own thread if you want to continue a discussion on the shortcomings of BCS theory. Stocking. Coal. Bad.

Trains require a conductor. Evolution doesn't have one. Your conductor seems busy deceiving people with faked fossils.

Sorry, didn't mean for you to hear that.

Whoa, who decides how humans are "supposed" to live? Isn't the whole point of superior intelligence to increase overall welfare and innovation of the species? Medicine has been extending lives steadily for several centuries now. This could be what helps make the population wiser as a whole, better able to adapt to increasing demands for harmony between existing species.

I'm astonished that you managed to overlook another main feature of hip bones in mammals, to provide a socket for the top of a leg, bridging the connection from them to the axial skeleton. Whales had legs. So did dolphins. Awesome evolution, I never get tired of it.

And this is what makes me believe the whole Intelligent Design movement is purposely deceptive. They create a false controversy by claiming there is a "vs" involved here, that there actually is something to discuss. Then they claim it's the duty of educators to teach both sides in schools so the kids can decide for themselves. Pure deception. Creationists removed the hipbones from the whale skeleton at the Creationist Museum. So, to them, controversy is obviously a one-way street.

! Moderator Note We're still trying to get other staff members to weigh in on this, during a busy holiday season. I will say that I've seen some fairly deceptive and fallacious statements from just about everyone involved. I see many strawmen in this thread, mostly trying to upgrade implications to declarations of fact. Right now, this seems like a semantics issue. Lying is deceptive, but I guess not all deception is a lie. It's true that pregnant women don't eat much raw cotton, but that's a fallacious and deceptive claim in context of this discussion, at least in my opinion. I'm mentioning that one because it seems to be at the heart of a few reported posts, not as the sole offender in this situation. We need to see all claims backed up, but even more I think we need everyone to step back and assess what's really being discussed here. There's way too much sniping going on, with smart and clever posters who know a good veiled insult when they see they can get away with one. You're all too savvy to play this blame game. I see no adamant pro- or anti-GMO stances as much as cautious optimism warring with cautious pessimism. This has been a very informative thread, but it has great huge swaths of uninteresting, nitpicky personal baggage that's keeping it from being great. Please help the rest of us understand why this issue is important by removing ego from the equation.

Not at all. Imagination came with increased intelligence, and it's trivially easy to see how it was selected for. Imagining things you couldn't see but only suspected were there kept some early humans alive to pass along this increasing imagination. It may have started out as a way to protect the tribe from lions in the shadows, but imagination has a way of feeding on itself when there is a lack of hard evidence. How could it be considered strange to perpetuate something that can't be supported that gives comfort and promises that when you die you really don't? It may not be rational, but it's easy to see why it's an easy thing to wish for. Far from it. Wishful thinking, hoping something is true, isn't supported by anything. I can stand by a default premise that there probably isn't a god(s) controlling the universe, but I can also wish that, somehow, despite nothing to support it, that the energy/memory/self that might make up what I call my "consciousness" lives on after my body dies. This differs from faith in that I don't really believe strongly in an afterlife; it's just a hope of mine. Evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by hundreds of thousands of experiments, direct observation and a solid methodology that allows for tremendous predictive power. There's nothing wishful about it. People have tried to refute it unsuccessfully for over a century and the theory just keeps getting stronger because of it.

Please don't do this. If you have a point, make it yourself and then link to your relevant sites. This way, you're asking us to sift through the links to glean your meaning without knowing why you want us to. Current discussion processes work better than current telepathic processes.

Is that the theory that if you mention a show enough in discussion forums, you'll boost the show's viewership, which can then be used to predict future advertising profits?