Reaper

Can you show us how this would be the case? Why though? I'm pretty certain alien life is probably nothing like Earth life, or evolved anything like Earth-life in most things (except mabye in being carbon based, but that's about it). Hell, about as recently as 400 million years ago (when the first land creatures made an appearance), the atmosphere on Earth was toxic to humans... And, 8-9 sexes seem to work for molds, and other unusual anatomies can be seen right here on Earth; so why not intelligent, technology wielding creatures on other worlds? I would have to disagree with you there. Many genetic-based diseases in humans (i.e. Alzheimer's) usually kick in long after their reproductive stage. I'm pretty sure that anything beneficial could also have evolved to take place long after reproductive age (if anyone would like to show examples of Earth life that does exactly this, please do so). =========================== In fact, I do have a question for most of you here; Why would life on another planet, intelligent or otherwise, have to be anything like we see here on Earth? Hell, even Earth life is very diverse and bears little resemblance to each other between specific ecosystems and geographical locations.

Arguing against a point I never made ? But, as we all know, the government or anybody else for that matter doesn't do any of that. Most are perfectly happy with blowing their money and resources on something that ultimately does them no good, which was basically the whole point of the video. That's why it was showing examples of what could have been, ranging from humanitarian aid to sciences to consumer products to social services (i.e. education, police, etc) to helping the environment, to even doing nothing. I agree with that, but I never made that point to begin with, and neither did the video, if you care to actually pay attention to the whole thing and especially the last portions of it. He could do that, but the situation of course is much more complex then that because what is happening in Darfur is due more to misguided ideological reasons (A BIG understatement, but technically that's the reason). As for our government, well, I disagree with you there. I believe that our government in this day and age is nothing more than a pack of wolves. I don't know either, but I think it has to do with the people's desire to follow the so-called alpha male, so to speak. But then again, I never actually argued for that. So, it's blowing your money to work on setting up solar panels on your own house, which would effectively take you off the grid and pay itself back over a short period of time? Or to provide medical help to all those who obviously can't afford it? Well, if you see it THAT way, it's no wonder why any of this doesn't seem to happen much sooner. ====================================== While the idea of free markets and free enterprise solving all of these problems without any government whatsoever is great, it just isn't realistic. As we all know, many of those organizations and corporations and other "free market enterprises" (even many of those who claim to aim to help the impoverished), and our own government are nothing more than a pack of wolves. And a great many people out there are either unaware or indifferent to what is going on. I don't think the government is the solution to everything, but I do think it has a responsibility to at least making people aware of these issues and at least giving some basic aid to organizations that actually aim to alleviate many of these problems, whether they be the sciences, social services, or the environment.

Don't worry, there wasn't.

Seconded.

There you go again. How is that statement that he put under gas prices an indication of that? He listed it on there just to show what could have been, not whether or not it was exactly correct or the right thing to do. (Everything else he listed otherwise I do agree with). How so? We are so willing to pay a huge percentage on our money toward war, why can't we do the same for all of the other things listed in the video? Owning your own house does not automatically make you a contributer to those problems. Sure, that's easy enough for you to say, but then, most on here (that includes those who are actually in those organizations) don't even know what it means to actually live in crushing poverty under the thumb of a tyrannical despot (usually backed and maintained by the U.S. no less...). About 75% of the world does not even have basic telephone service, never mind all the things that Americans usually waste their money and lives on. Why though?

What I find interesting is that you guys seem to be wanting to deny all of this because you don't feel comfortable with the implications (or don't want to take responsibility for) of what we are currently doing in Iraq or elsewhere. Its quite similar to the way that people try to rationalize their unwillingness to take steps to reduce their carbon and ecological footprint (Where do you think most of the pollution and waste comes from? HINT: It's NOT from the industry...) You are entitled to your own opinion, but you have yet to show how any of this is wrong (i.e. I only care about facts, not about your opinions). The term "brainwashed" is incorrect in this case. Actually, that was put under gasoline prices, not laptops.

You do know that most of the pollution and emissions and waste come right from the residential areas, homes, and cars, right?

Well, if you really look at the history books, that's pretty much always been the case with any empire you came across, not just Americans. The Romans, for example, thought of everyone else as barbarians and, when they took their military in and stamped out all the other smaller kingdoms and their various resistance, they would celebrate and claim to bring "enlightenment" and of course, "freedom". Hell, you look can still see state published propaganda of this kind inscribed on roman ruins. And then, you all probably know what the British did to justify going in and conquering vast pieces of land (e.g. the White Man's Burden). All that has really changed is that now, Americans are doing this, and of course we have even better technology. Of course, if we really did care about democracy and freedom, then why are we still supporting those despots all over the Middle East and Latin America? one only wonders why....

I had orginally thought that this thread was about which animals could commit suicide, not which animals/creatures do it like humans do...

Got the pitch forks ready !!!

You guys probably would want to read this, it's related and I found it quite interesting (and disturbing): http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/MiddleEast.html

You are arguing against a claim I never made ? I posted that the most effective forms is usually always truthful, not that most of it is. RE the second paragraph, I indeed did make a little mistake with my wording there. Otherwise what I did mean is that with the money that is spent, we could have done any of the things, whether instantaneously or over 200 years (i.e. recycling). ================================ In any case, I agree with the video. It is not just mere "propaganda", it is primarily intended to get people such as ourselves to stop being stupid sheep and most importantly to think about it.

Or, December 21, 2012 is probably going to end up being one of these days...

Arguing semantics here are we? The skepticism is valid only if 1) you have contradictory data or 2) the interpretation is not adequate given known laws/principles of physics/biology/chemistry/etc, or given known phenomenon and causes thereof, or 3) the results aren't, weren't, or can't be replicated, or 4) arbitrary controls or methods (or lack of them) were involved/used. Many of the conclusions that were refuted in the history of science is because of these reasons. All of the graphs, principles, mathematics, evidence, et.c that Swansont, among others, provided clearly show that their conclusions are reasonable. What this means to the policy makers (or our puny civilization for that matter) is irrelevant. Your personal feelings aren't considered valid criticism. ========================= So, if you want to disprove these models and predictions otherwise, you have to show that at least one of the four things I described are present. 1 and 3 are out for the count for your side since there is such overwhelming evidence in favor of the predictions made and they have been consistently shown to be accurate. And the conclusions involved are certainly possible given 2. So, your only recourse is to rely on #4, and so far all of your examples have been refuted.

I did, it is just that it is irrelevant. The circumstances are different for each and every case, and in the case of the 4000 losses on the U.S. military, they could, and should have been avoided. The comparison fails because the 3000 figure was a planned attack, while those 160000+ deaths are due to the various reasons outlined (while I would argue that some of those deaths may be self-inflicted, but they still contribute to the social cost overall...). The 4000 deaths in Iraq (well, actually there is way more then that, but we are only counting U.S. military personnel) were more or less self-inflicted for no logical reason other than the fact that Bush, for whatever reason, wanted to instigate a war; and regardless on what you hear on other American propaganda, it is NOT fought in the name of freedom, equality, goodness, etc (If we actually cared about THAT, we would be against ALL totalitarian governments, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Venezuela, etc). You can call that fair or unfair if you want, but the figures and reasons behind them still stand. No, he was comparing the cost of the war to what the total amount of money could have otherwise accomplished in the same span of time. If we spent and/or invested nearly as much on any of the things the video listed, we probably could have accomplished it and we would have most likely been far better off; it doesn't matter how long it would have taken to implement any of this (he even states clearly how long it would take to use up all of the money under given circumstances). It's not like we lack the natural resources or the capital to have undergone such investments either. Maybe because the figures are accurate. And besides, we are surrounded by propaganda at every single instance; not all of it is bad either. Here is the proper definition of propaganda: and A simple television commercial is a form of propaganda, for example. Hasty generalization, non sequitor and/or slippery slope fallacies. Besides, he clearly states that he is not pacifist, so your assumptions are incorrect. But its not, and I ran the numbers myself. This seems to be based more out of personal distaste of a group of people or a particular philosophy (of which he is not part of or supports in anyway, no less), rather than an objective reason.

LMAO! ==================================== For those of you interested, here is a comprehensive critique of Star Trek tech and engineering (star trek in general also): http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Engineering.html

Well, it's not so much the energy requirements that bother me, but the way it is depicted in Star Trek, and of course whether it would possibly be available on the ship itself. I tend to be a bit skeptical and rather uneasy with ALL Star Trek tech (especially in terms of practical use).... especially it's reliance on techno-babble. Hell, I would argue that the technology in Star Trek tends to be rather shaky, unreliable, and/or obsolete by 21st Century standards; other than warp drive, the ship itself, or Data, there really isn't anything innovative or great about it. And, it did NOT predict any major technological/fundamental science advances, contrary to popular belief (The Borg, for example, were inspired by KNOWN tech advances at the time and by the ideas of people who actually did research in the field...) ================================== And besides, Star Wars tech (or rather, the tech from most other sci-fi authors and T.V. shows for that matter) is way, way better, and IMO more imaginative. You don't necessarily need to include the Death Star to be convinced of this... It's some "plasma conduit" I think. The crystals themselves only allow you to control the reactions. In any case, I don't feel like searching for the appropriate term used.

Did I also mention Ringworld too? Something like that is certainly feasible given an advanced enough civilization. Star Wars' planetary shields could also be potentially possible some day (even if it turns out to be much weaker than it's Star Wars' counterpart, I do see useful applications in shielding large bodies, such as radiation protection or to defend against high velocity meteoroids). Personally, I'm a bit skeptical of it. While I'm sure that, if we did actually create one or is certainly possible, it would certainly more than revolutionize manufacturing methods, the energy requirements seem a bit daunting, even if you decided to create an object the size of flea (but then, the Star Trek universe in general seems to have limitless supplies of energy available to them, and yet can't seem to use it to actually go into other galaxies....)

I thought about putting this in biomedical ethics, but I'd figured that it would be better over here. It's about vaccinations and the people who are against them. Just found it this morning while browsing, let me know what you think: EDIT: forgot the link: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/01/04/woo-shot/

Bees, alright I can accept that as not counting. But ants, and termites for that matter, do count. It doesn't really matter if it is conscious decision, or if it is done on command (e.g. the attack on the twin towers was done on command, and so were kamikazee's, etc.), or anything else really. The point is that the individual members have the capability of doing so, and in many species that I know of many of the members, other than the "queen", are capable of reproducing (or have the potential to do so if key hormones are activated). Whatever the reasons, collective or not, don't really matter. All that is necessary is that they can and have been observed doing so. (Ants, actually, are capable of doing a whole bunch of other things that humans can also do, but that's for another thread). So, there are a few other non human species that we know of that can, and certainly do, commit suicide.

Here's a blog spot about him, if you guys are interested: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/12/26/just-in-case-you-thought-ron-paul-wasnt-so-bad/

We can list all of the possible scenarios for which abortion could be considered necessary, even arbitrary or immoral or otherwise bad reasons. But in the end, it doesn't really matter; the fact that some may genuinely need it for health related reasons (whether specific to the mother or the unborn fetus) is reason enough for abortion to be allowed and for women to have the choice in opting for one.

Might be. But the things you described happened quite a while ago. Since then, education and critical thinking have declined quite a bit, and scientific research in all major fields (this includes space research) is beginning to move out of here as well (Japan already leads in computers and A.I. for example; it's very amusing now to read about M.I.T's "advances" in that field). So, I wouldn't be surprised if the statistics were actually representative of the general population.

Well, if there is anything you really want to share but are afraid to, just PM me. You certainly won't get any infraction points from doing that. I know what you are talking about though (It's reason #13 in the link).

You seem speechless iNow, why is that may I ask? I prefer the other method, the one where you just sit and, all of the sudden, all of the Earth's particles will spontaneously disappear....