Phi for All

And Boulder briefly considered flyovers before they chose to make the more expensive underpasses. They'll spend more money but the benefit is that the view isn't marred by above-ground structures. Efficient AND more pleasing. I wish we could have an elevated maglev train between Denver and Boulder. It would show everyone that trains don't have to interact with traffic, that light rail can reduce automobile use and that people can make better use of their commute time if they don't have to pay attention to the road. And maglevs are sooooo sweet and green! A great example of more efficient technology that saves money over the long run AND is a more pleasurable experience to boot.

I look at it this way, if we invest billions in becoming more aware of how we use limited resources and how we affect the planet we live on it will never be wasted. Remember that one of the overlooked benefits is that we get a cleaner place to live. I'm always harping on smarter ways of building roads in the US. We let people drive on asphalt the day it's put down and that insures the road will need to be redone within a year or two. Allowing it to cure saves money but inconveniences us and for some that's a wash as far as the economic factor. But we always forget that if we let the roads cure we get ten years or more of fantastic roads! So even if our global warning fears turn out false we'll still get a cleaner home out of it.

This would seem to cover a human in a coma but what about that individual? Is this a person or just a human? Are we making a distinction between the two? What about someone who has no brain function and is being kept alive artificially? Are they still a person or are they just human? For that matter what if you had just a human brain that was hooked up to support systems and a speech synthesizer so its thoughts could be heard? It could argue that it is a person so is it by Cap'n's definition?

I highly concur as a member of SFN and I would hate to see another member led into a bad decision made without without the input of the entire community. Personally I frown on taking this private and it makes me question the intent of the OP. As a Staff member in a gray area I am compelled to close this thread temporarily to allow adjudication. If you are considering contacting lordmagnus by PM on this issue I highly recommend you wait for the outcome of the Staff deliberations.

Slavery/racism: Wrong in every aspect. However, if you pay them an acceptable wage (as determined by the payee) and allow them to do as they please when their work is done for the day, you move from slavery to employment. God help you then. Abortion: I love children but I personally think the host should have superior rights until birth. A time must be set for legal purposes and I think the first trimester should be allowed for "mistakes", the second trimester for severe health reasons and any later only for life and death situations. Potential can't be considered imo because it is too vague. Animal rights: I think we are progressing to the point where we will not need to feed upon animals but until that time comes we need to avoid cruelty wherever possible. If it costs more to be humane then that will force the market to consider alternatives. We need to stop putting so much emphasis on convenience and expediency and start thinking more long-range about EVERYTHING. Genetic engineering: One of the toughest questions for me. The implications are very severe and there are many gray areas. Fallacious logic abounds ("it works great on *this* so it should work great on *that*") and we need to constantly ask ourselves whether we should do something just because we can. Artificial intelligence: We have to remember that we think of ourselves and our intelligence from one frame of reference. It is delusional to assume we are the ultimate in intelligence. We had better have a comprehensive framework in place to determine what "artificial" is before we make something that has the potential to be smarter than we are. Extraterrestrial life: While I don't think we are alone, I think the possibility of contact in the next century is remote (we seem to be having some difficulties right here at home). If we find life off-planet it probably won't be as complex as our own. If ETs find us they will most likely be more complex. Again, we should have a pretty clear framework in place to determine how we might gauge the complexity of alien lifeforms and our response to them.

Perhaps you should start a new one because this thread is about Human / Ape Crossbreeding. Bad form to hijack someone else's thread, you Wal-mart shopper.

Did you change your email and password on the home computer? You mentioned you changed one computer due to hackers.

Excellent point. You said this better than I could have. Hybrids should either have all the responsibilities and rights of a human or none of them. Anything in between seems like exploitation. Read further down this post. mak2 was making a joke about Wal-mart employees (or possibly customers).

I'm sure that Project Steve, while somewhat tongue in cheek, is interested in maintaining the highest credentials. Perhaps Mr. Branch suspects you are an infiltrating creationist whose goal is to undermine the... seriousness of the project. I'm curious as to what his reasons for rejecting you are. Is it strictly because of the abstract and your university?

No, I think you'd just like them to be. Couldn't be further from the truth. I think you're definitely misunderstanding me since all your rebuttals are aimed at a completely different argument. I stated that one problem might be having a hybrid that exhibited near-human intelligence and that I feel it's very likely "it" (or "they") would be exploited without granting them the kind of rights humans enjoy in a human society. You asked how it was different from breeding horses. I gave three differences, not "reasons". My argument against human / chimp crossbreeding is more of an ethical and legal one rather than a morality issue. We may learn a great deal from attempting it but breeding *anything* with humans and possibly creating something with sentience approaching our own opens up the possibility of extending human rights to them. And if they are performing near-human tasks without the benefit of those rights then I feel it's exploitative. "Plenty sentient" is not what I'm talking about, nor am I talking about chimps. I'm talking about a human / chimp hybrid that could possibly be much more than "plenty sentient".

"Just" found it and joined SFN to point that out? Get paid for Google hits do you? Post again to this thread and I'll take it all back.

Hand-waving. You asked how this was different from breeding horses and I gave you three differences. And the fact that we as humans can pose moral and ethical questions helps define those characteristics as being species-specific. With regards to determining rights which are inalienable to humans, chimps are still "alien". A hybrid may not be viewed as such. If it demonstrated cognitive speech would we view it as more human?

Three links to the same web page in a thread which invites no discussion. I smell agenda. The first couple of sentences are cut and paste from a report. Please cite your references if you're going to do that verbatim and as Bignose has pointed out it would be nice if we had some opinions from the OP that helped to shape a discussion.

Creationists are using a technique used by many industries these days. I don't know if it has an actual name yet, but the technique goes like this: set up an agency or an authority figure though third parties that seems removed from your agenda and then point to them for support. The major car insurance agencies set up just such a group to rate aftermarket car parts as an excuse not to use more expensive factory parts. They have this "independent" agency give the green light for cheaper parts and then say, "We abide by the rulings of the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) in determining if these parts are just as good as factory parts". I'm sure this author is very careful to avoid creationism. That way creationists can point to him as an independent source for undermining evolution. These authors are often self-styled "scientists" who have no agenda other than pointing out "the truth", usually with a minimum of actual science involved.

As a service to the membership I took the liberty of removing some confusing errors and all the condecension in the quote above without destroying content (hopefully). If this offends the OP I will remove it but I was caught between frustration with the phrasing and anger at being talked down to. Plus it always makes me defensive when someone is going to show me the truth if I will but look and listen. Man that pisses me off! And I agree with mak2, the paint analogy is an analogy only, not the "proof" you claim it to be. I'm still wrestling with the rest and trying to keep an open mind.

And you're repeating this because...? Couldn't you please explain that you are not suggesting an actual mating with a willing human female and a male chimpanzee? That is what's behind the legal ramifications that may get this entire thread shut down and locked away. Because we don't breed them with ourselves. Because intraspecies breeding isn't interspecies breeding. And finally because the result isn't likely to cause as much legal and moral grief as breeding something that might have partial claim to human rights. What do any of these strawmen have to do with breeding other animals with humans? Are you really equating constrained environments with breeding a human / chimpanzee hybrid?

In a Blue Mountains match, the batsman Tetrahedrite was out first ball. "Not like last week," said the wicket-keeper. "No," said Tetrahedrite. "Last week I stayed in and got forty and when I got back all the beer was gone!" When John Cuthber's wife was expecting, he rang the hospital to see how his wife was getting on. By mistake he dialed the number for Lord's Cricket Ground. "How's it going?" he asked. "Fine," came the answer, "We've got two out already and hope to have the rest out before lunch. The last one was a duck!"

They're definitely talking cricket. There is an ICC World Cup this year (could be every year, don't know, don't care). I blame ecoli for mentioning FIFA. I blame him for global warming and long lines at the supermarket too, but that would be off-topic.

There you go, it never happens. I just think it's weird that if a baseball team had an uber-version of Nolan Ryan who could throw no-hitters in half the games of the season, attendance at the stadium would probably drop due to sheer boredom. One of the few instances in professional sports where if you perform perfectly most people would be yawning. Can you imagine watching a game where one run is scored early on and the rest of the game is a battle between pitchers with no more hits? At least I'd get to leave earlier than I planned. Oh, btw, I'd bother to watch the World Cup if they were playing Brockian Ultra-Cricket.

Me too, but for a different reason. I think women in general see the big picture better and are better strategic thinkers. Men are better at tactics and focused performance. So forget having Sisyphus or YT2095 as Warlord. I think Kitty (YT's wife), my wife and Pangloss' wife should form a triumvirate and tell the men what needs to be accomplished (with our helpful suggestions, of course), then set the men loose to do what needs to be done.

One big problem is that no test for evidence to date has been repeatable. Many claim to have found supernatural evidence but no one has been able to duplicate the experiments which supposedly procured the evidence.

What is the "waste" that comes from touch? Dead skin cells? I love their new CD! The video is pretty gross, though.

On both sides? Ninety years ago there was supposedly a double no-hitter but I believe that was overthrown.

I'm officially asking you to please STOP using text-message abbreviations. This is not your phone or a messenger service and it's important to communicate your ideas and questions in a manner most will understand. This is for your benefit as well as ours. You will get more responses if people don't have to take so much time deciphering what you mean. Thanks in advance for your understanding.

I was just thinking about this the other day, but in my daydream I had won a lottery and had to figure out how to live the rest of my life on one lump sum. I think this scenario would be pretty much the same for me. I make a distinction between a "vacation" and a "trip". Vacations are for parking your butt somewhere beautiful and catching up on your reading without the stress of having to be somewhere doing something. Trips are for exploring, learning, sightseeing and education. I would immediately go on a three week vacation to St. Croix, followed by a trip to Europe (or possibly Turkey or Costa Rica). As for what I'd do instead of work a job, I would like to work with builders around the world to promote sustainable architecture and design. I would like to put together a team of engineers and architects to travel around the world implementing LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) in countries that desperately need it. Alternative energy strategies are being funded massively in the Pacific Rim and right now they have more money than ideas so research and planning won't have to come out of my salary. I don't have to have a lot of material possessions. I think traveling more would actually force me to cut back on buying more stuff (best to travel light). If I'm spending less time at home then I don't need as much anyway. I would probably hire an au pair to school my daughter as we travel. I could probably find someone good who would be willing to take a minimal salary in exchange for room, board and travel expenses. Going back to school myself would have to wait since I need to save what I can for my daughter's college. I like that my retirement is taken care of but there are many expenses I'm sure I am forgetting.