Phi for All

I'm not sure about it being unethical. Is it unethical for a woman in her early 40s to have a child because of an increased possibility for Down syndrome? Brother/sister mating is taking an awful chance of a child with a dangerous disorder. I would call father/daughter or mother/son matings unethical, but more for the abuse of authority than for the possibility of birth defects. This all assumes it's not a multi-generational situation. You increase the possibilities of having a child with an autosomal recessive disorder with inbreeding, but they're not so easily activated within a single generation. And the closer the relation of the parents, the more likely their child is to pick up a pair of bad recessive alleles.

Finally. We had to start without you.

My daughter went to elementary school with a Sidney. She seemed very nice, so I associate the name with blond girls.

! Moderator Note Enough trolling, xxx200. If you're unwilling to listen to reason or back your assertions up rationally you should go west the space on another forum. Thread closed.

I remember Charles Darwin wrote about some rainforest species that colonized, and I think most of the ones that cooperate are from tropical climates, but don't quote me on that. I don't remember what species they were.

! Moderator Note Thanks very much, we really appreciate it!

Most are solitary, ambush hunters. They see each other as rivals, or just lunch. There are spiders that colonize, but I'm not sure the prolific silk-spinners are that cooperative.

Going green would probably require more jobs, since the energy from green sources isn't equal to what we get from fossil fuels. The world still goes around, work doesn't stop. We've already made it off planet. And the human race is made up of individuals, billions of them as you pointed out. That means there's a great many of them who don't want to kill each other. People smart enough to arrange so much, so they can be rich after the rest of us are dead? What good is being wealthy if there's no one else left to do the work?

You're off by almost 30%.

For what purpose? Why would you want to?

I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I think our exposure to heavy commercialization has an effect on our evolutionary paths. Natural selection would seem to be influenced by materialism, and how we look and dress is also heavily influenced by the need to sell ways to change how we look and dress. The effects of governments and laws, coupled with a more global outlook, seems to be creating (at least in the US) a tendency towards conservatism, and I think we're becoming excessively so. I'm not sure if this is simply modern commercialism playing to a negative set of emotions in an attempt at control, but I can't help but think it will affect future generations.

! Moderator Note In the future, please give more direction for discussion than a title and a link. Since we're here to hear your perspective, just a few words on that would be appreciated greatly. Thanks!

! Moderator Note In the future, if you're going to cut/paste from another source, please give a citation or provide a link to where you got it. Otherwise, you're violating our rules against plagiarizing the work of others.

If there is something in the videos that you want to discuss, I think it's fine to link to them. If it's just "Hey, this is really good, have a look", well, we're all capable of surfing on our own, no offense. Me, I'm much more interested in what Moontanman and other SFN members have to say about the variety of subjects we discuss here. I can get unchallenged opinion lots of places. I can only get discussion with this particular international group of high-caliber intellects here at SFN.

I can't speak for Sweden, of course, but why would a Parliamentary democracy allow the migration of an ignorant, wasteful, poor person who would sadly let the wealthy decide who gets to live to procreate? What's in it for them? It would seem contraindicated, in an evolutionary sense.

I don't think anyone is saying they should be eliminated. They have a function as long as they aid in discussions. I think the key is to make them more effective at that. Kudos to JMJones0424 for the tip on how to zero in on the important bits of imbedded youtube videos. That's a step in the right direction, imo. What I would like to ban is starting threads in the science sections with videos like Smell Explained. If the OP would respond to replies in written format, it might be different, but a video like this is just soapboxing, and would be better as part of a blog. But that's just my opinion, and so far this hasn't happened often. And yes, we already have rules about soapboxing, should the OP fail to show up for replies.

If you're saying you wish the ultra-wealthy would stop screwing with us, I agree.

I don't mind videos as a source, as long as there is some written member input as well. Like Greg H., I think narrowing down the pertinent parts shows that you're aiming at relevancy, rather than simply promoting someone else's video views as being similar to yours (I mean, do you really want Dr. Fugensteinalgab to do your talking for you?). Most people handle video linking quite well, especially when the link is to a news story reference as opposed to some kind of editorial perspective they're using to take the place of their own words. There have been a few videos lately that are made by the member, and used exclusively as their opening post. I object to these mostly because there are rarely any responses to replies, and so the video seems like soap-boxing, stating a position with no intent to discuss. And I shudder to think what video replies would even be like. The written medium is usually much more thoughtful than any other while being fairly responsive time-wise as well. These types of videos also seem like they're aimed at increasing hits on YouTube accounts, which is against our rules.

Still, the release of energy through nuclear fission represented an enormous leap in our destructive capabilities. We can at least be comforted that we're living up to our fabled high intelligence (so far). Some have proposed that this may be part of why we haven't run into any other spacefaring species; having a weapon so powerful but not using it may be harder than we think.

It would seem then that we have no checks to balance Congress out when they decide to be stupid. This was very evident when the House introduced the Patriot Act on October 23, 2001, voted on it on October 24 (despite there being only two copies available), it passed the Senate on October 25 and the president signed it on October 26. AFAIK, only two members of Congress who voted for it admitted the truth, that it would have been impossible to have actually read the bill before voting on it.

Really great points, everyone. I had hoped that an attempt at mollifying the pro-life crowd would put an end to the constant bickering about abortion, and the constant tap-dancing politicians need to do to keep from offending a fairly large part of the vote. I think pro-life people most often picture late-term abortions or wanton harlots having unprotected sex with multiple partners every day whenever the subject comes up, in much the same way many conservatives picture lazy slackers drinking publicly provided beer whenever the subject is welfare. The pictures painted by the opposition are usually worst-case scenarios, and yet that becomes the default for many, leading to even more extremism and fear.

I think I could accept this, but it gives no concessions to the very large and vocal pro-life crowd, which I think makes it impractical. In order to become a legal definition, I think we have to at least prohibit late term abortions for no reason other than "I changed my mind".

Which checks exactly do you think have broken down to cause an imbalance in the integrity of our elected officials?

Then let's focus on this, since the rest is more wheel-spinning, imo. Is it the higher brain functions of cognition that makes a human a person with rights under the law? A practical line needs to be drawn, if only to keep the lawyers from being able to find a loophole that allows a zygote to hold an adult woman hostage.

I think we need a practical, legal definition of life, something that can put to rest all the moral wheel-spinning over issues like abortion. We've been side-tracked for too long politically on this issue and the resources we've spent on it are desperately needed elsewhere. Btw, if you're looking for a more biological discussion about the definition of life, there is a current one here. I have big problems with life legally beginning at conception. It opens a Pandora's Box of ramifications for both women and men with respect to negligence. Is it homicide if a woman gets the news of being 3 weeks pregnant but then miscarries because she worked out strenuously at the gym the next day? You have to realize that if conception becomes the legal definition of life, law enforcement would inevitably lead to enormous intrusions into our private lives. Beating heart? That doesn't really cut it, since we can artificially keep a heart beating. You wouldn't be correct if you said a person was dead just because their heart stopped beating. The rate of resuscitation shows we can't use the heart as a good qualifier. Brain waves? Lack of brain activity is good enough for a definition of death, so the start of brain activity should be good enough for a definition of life. Unfortunately, pro-life advocates often claim that fetal brain waves start as early as six weeks. I've been reading this article (which has lots of nice citations to scientific studies as well as the common claims) and it suggests that, while brain activity that controls motor functions develops early in the first trimester, higher cognitive brain activity, the kind we associate with sentient thought and experience, doesn't start until the end of the second trimester. As a legal definition of life, and a practical one, I think 26 weeks is a workable guideline. Personally, in any situation I had any control over, I would avoid abortion unless there was medical reasons that threatened the life of the mother. Legally though, we need a more nuanced approach, we need to agree on it, and we need to move on. I'm tired of this being used to stall our political and societal efforts at a very crucial time in our development. What do you think?