pioneer

In very general terms, the free market motivation is based on making money. While government motivation is based on making power. Free market money can then be used to buy power, such as with lobbying and targeted campaign contributions. While power can be used to make money, such as with taxation and regulations. The free market is good at making money. Profit is maximized when the resources are used as efficiently as possible. One needs to cheap down as far as possible and still be able to sell. In government, one is not allowed to use their position to make personal money. At least not in the open. What is allowed is to use one's position to create more power. This differentiation between money and power creates two different approaches with respect to resources. For example, if one was given a choice of $10M and ten people or $5M and five people to do a job, the free marketeer would chose the latter for his company, since this could mean $5M profit. One tries to do the most with the least to make the most money. With government, since they can't use any of those resources for personal profit, one would chose the $10M and ten people, since that means more money and manpower for your power. If the next guy, in the adjacent office only has $5M and five people, but I have $10M and ten people, for a similar job, I am considered more powerful. Here is an interesting scenario. Say we gave government employee's 1% bonuses for all the efficiency they could create in their sphere of influence. If they save $1M, we give them an extra $10K. The $990,000 savings then goes back into the economy. The idea is to replace the the power drive for money drive, to increase efficiency. This efficiency would compete with power, which does better with much lower efficiency. But since we have sweetened the pot with profit sharing, there would be a competition between the ideal waste needed for power and the ideal efficiency needed for money. There is not a single government agency that makes profit. This is not because it is not possible. It is because power needs inefficiency. Let me give an analogy. Say one was going to war. Your opponent has an army of 1000 good men. Efficiency would bring 1100 good men to get the job done. But this tight efficiency would require a excellent general. Power would be more wasteful and bring 10,000. This way even an idiot can win with 10,000. Power was designed with boneheads in mind. The inefficiency makes it possible for bonehead to shine.

As we move from the sub-atomic structure of matter, into the sizes of the macro-world, matter moves toward the pure particle state, away from the particle-wave duality. On the other hand, energy retains the particle-wave duality, regardless of scale-up or scale-down. For example, a ball sitting on the table is not a wave, nor is it under the rules of uncertainty. It is more or less a particle at position (x,y,y,t). However, the color of the ball, or its energy refection will still exhibit particle-wave properties. The main difference between matter and energy has to due with the loss of wave characteristics, and the movement away from uncertainty. With energy, whether we go small to large or large to small, it will stay the same. The difference is connected to time potential. The motion blur effect of photography is an analogy. If the shutter frequency is too slow, such that time potential is left in the photo. Since time has stopped in a still photo, the excess time potential becomes uncertainty in distance; blur. If you look at the photo above, it has particle-wave duality. The part of the photo with certainty in distance is analogous to the particle aspect. This is where there is little excess time potential. The wave aspect has more uncertainty in distance due to more time potential. As we scale up matter into macro-form, the excess time potential goes into mass instead of into distance creating certainty in space-time.

Don't get me wrong. When science seeks the truth of reality, such as the distance to the moon, it is being pure. There is ideal science trying to solve the mysteries of nature. The result is what it is. But one can also have science, motivated by secular interests. One may need to call upon science to help with insect pests. Science reacts to the need, sometimes free market motivation, and comes up with DDT. This science is not looking long term to the final truth, but short term for the quickie free market need. Later more science is needed to mop up, after that science. This mop science may then swing to far to the other side, motivated by irrational political interests. In poor countries millions are allowed to die from mosquitos, since the political task master says there is a risk in DDT, even if the risk, under some circumstances, would create less death. Science doesn't have the stones for this reality, being beholden. The cigarette companies used science like a mercenary to help promote their cause. Empirical science is very useful for this, since it leaves reality open to interpretation. One only has to plan in a clever way. This is the weak link of science, where it can be lead around by special interests.

If one is not allowed to use birth control, one is placed in a position that requires more will power. One has less options to act like an unconscious animal. There is a natural cause and effect when it comes to sex, with certain extrapolated consequences. With birth control, this natural cause and effect is made synthetic, such that the natural cause and effect no longer applies. This synthetic state requires less will power and allows more impulse. This is easier for the branch of the human species that came from the apes. One has to think logically, which atheist can do. Sex has a natural cause and effect. Knowing this cause and effect and the potential future implications, without birth control, one has to figure out how to express sexuality within the confines of the natural cause and effect and its future consequences. It takes a little extra brain power to meet the needs of these conditions and its implication. With birth control, one needs less brain power, which may be better for those closer to animals. I don't blame the descendants of the apes. The way of the religious human branch, may have overloaded the ape brain. One size does not fit all. Things like ADD shows a movement back to atheist animals. This is less focus, will power, like the animals and much more compulsion. We may need to separate humanity into two overlapping species, with the behavior of each natural to each. One size may not fit all, but rather we need two basic sizes. one for each species.

One way to address this logically has to do with configurational potential. When the DNA splits (extrudes), what remains within the cell needs to be in equilibrium with internal materials. The result is stabilized since there is a balanced state. For example, the ovum defines a given configurational potential relative to all the materials and configurations, with the DNA half retained, in equilibrium. This creates a failsafe, so the correct genes are retained within a margin of error. The male gamete cells accumulate different materials, such that the DNA retained defines a different blend for equilibrium. The combining of the male and female DNA, will create a non-equilibrium state within the ovum. This will then trigger activity to remove the potential, such as gene shuffling to lower the potential and cell division. If you change the genetic retention, one can get non equilibrium, in the initial configurations, and/or a not enough non-enquilibrium potential after the recombination. This is possible but less likely to occur.

In tradition, the female aspect seeks perfection, while male aspect seeks completeness. Males are more likely to become explorers, which adds to what is already perfect, making things more complete. Females tend to perfect what already is. The woman will try to mold her husband to make him in her image of perfection. The man will try to make his wife more complete, if possible. The virgin in public and ho in bed. The universe is not perfect via observation. That means, the universe is masculine and therefore, heading toward completeness. The idea that god is perfect, unknowingly works under the assumption god is female; trying to make the universe the perfect place. The story of Eve eating the apple, was based on the promise she would know good from evil, and therefore she would know the way of perfection. But unfortunately, Satan is masculine and would therefore help move the world toward completeness. The net result laws of good and evil would forever change, with the apple of perfection, an illusion. Adam knew he wasn't suppose to eat the apple. He would have been perfect if he didn't. But since the masculine aspect is based on completeness, eating the apple, made him more complete but less than perfect.

Spanking can be effective, for teaching cause and effect, to children with an attention span of a puppy. But it only works, if it is based on consistent cause and effect, and not the whimsical irrationality of an adult. The latter is what gives spanking a bad reputation. Some adults do it for themselves. When done properly cause and effect is taught in 1-2 seconds, which is the attention span of a puppy. With ADD, attention is short, by definition. With a lecture, cause and effect is stretched out beyond 1-2 seconds. The longer the lecture is drawn out, the less one has full attention of a puppy. This can cause the adult to become frustrated and irrational, talking to a fidgeting wall, making it harder to teach cause and effect. One starts to teach irrationality to the distracted irrational. Many parents pawn off the duty to teachers and/or medication since they hit this wall. A time out, takes the adult out of the picture and depends on the puppy to figure out cause and effect for themselves. This is more for the adult to help them avoid having to deal with the rod, or a lecture, to a wall. It is the TV of the punishment world, so they ignore the problem and hope he out grows it on his own. Let me give an example of a real world spanking based on cause and effect. The candle flame is hot and can burn you. This is a law of reality, based on cause and effect. Once the child touches the flame, he immediately gets spanked by the flame. The flame is not being mean. This is cause and effect within reality. Even with the attention span of a puppy, a puppy will learn a lesson in cause and effect. The faster they feel pain from the flame; sensitivity, the quicker they avoid it in the future, the less danger to them and the less permanent scar damage. Very few children are mentally scarred for life, hating all candles, after quickly learning cause and effect. Those who don't learn, are more likely to scale up until they get permanently scarred. Next, we will take away the immediate cause and effect lesson of the flame. Fire is hot, period. So we will need to do this by removing nerves in the hand, making the child insensitive. This allows the puppy to place his hand in the fire many times, so we can talk about it. We deaden him to the natural cause and effect by avoiding natural pain of fire. Although he may feel less pain, the final damage to his skin is more pronounced. The last way is to also remove the cause and effect of the natural nerves, via surgery. After each singe of the hand, with little pain, we place him in his room and tell him to figure it out.

I would guess it has to do with cell growth coming from the two zones of the cut at the same. When we grow, there is only one zone. A wound changes this into two independent growth zones. A good analogy of normal growth is blowing up a balloon. The entire surface stretches simultaneously (cells dividing holographically). Say we had two cylindrical balloons, to simulate the cut, where the two balloons meet, there is a pressure zone which is good for sealing the wound, but this situation loses the holographic symmetry making a less than perfect blend. I would guess, since the skin has so many nerve endings, the brain has an good picture of what the skin used to look like. This ideal skin is the goal with at least some of the scare tissue eventually trying to move back to the ideal memory. The compromise is the updated memory.

I would say that the energy of photons is within the frequency. Distance is a static variable, while time/frequency is a dynamic variable. The dynamic variable will contain the energy. We can measure distance with a meter stick. We measure time/frequency with a clock. Meter sticks do not require batteries, since one does not need energy to measure a static variable. However, clocks do require an energy source. It takes energy to measure energy. An interesting effect using the energy within frequency is done in photography. It has to do with shutter speed. If the shutter speed or frequency is too low, one will get motion blur within the picture. This is where aspects of the picture look blurry. The difference in frequency between stopping all the motion and the frequency needed for motion blur (energy difference), will create uncertainty in distance (blur). Since time is stopped in the photo, distance becomes a dynamic variable, which can no longer be measured exactly without adding energy. One has to give kinetic energy to the coordinate system, which takes energy, to simulate the uncertainty created by the frequency difference with time stopped.

Another consideration is the activation energy hill. The climb up the front side, is the amount of energy needed to push the reactants to where they will react. Once at the top of the hill, the product slides down the hill to a lower energy level giving off energy. If the climb up the front of the hill is easy (low energy) and the slide down the back side of the hill is very long (lot of energy output), this provides the most explosive situation. It takes very little energy to get a chain reaction, and since the products are so far down the backside of the hill, little energy is wasted in reversed reactions.

I understand how the new tradition of needing supernova to make all the higher elements, works. I also understand the old tradition where the sun could make all the atoms. Comparing the two, why is it possible to make the largest most endothermic elements above atomic number 100, in the lab, with relatively mild conditions? The old tradition of the sun making all the atoms was consistent with this, so science did it, easily. The new traditions can't even get fusion to work well with the new theories. What should be highly exothermic barely breaks even. That could explain why they assume a more powerful effect is needed; lack of theory efficiency. The new tradition is analogous to saying to smash an apple, we would need a train hitting a mountain. At the same time, we make this claim, a child picks up an apple and bites it. Even with that observation, we still want to believe we need a train hitting the mountain.

The "pro" sides should have the burden of proof. Those who believe in god, and those who believe animals have religion, need to carry the burden proof. I set an atheist challenge. The atheists must prove that animals have religion or else they need to concede that atheist lack something, since they descended from the apes, and apes don't have religion. I don't have to do any work, just keep harping until proof is supplied by the atheist. I will then discredit any offering of proof, using the atheist template. Once you back someone into an impossible corner, like proving god or animals have religion, things sort of become self for filling. Even with the positive qualities that many atheist possess, one can use their own tactic to cloud these good qualities. I learned this from the descendants of the apes, who have no religion. The atheist religion is free to have faith other animals have religion. I don't need to research millions of critters that are or have been, so they can foot drag. My take on the very first religion, which separated humans from the atheist animals, had to do with changes within the human brain, at the unconscious level. The most important effect was unconscious projection onto reality, so human reactions needed to take this into consideration. This dynamics may have been similar to the kitten playing chase games, putting out all the activity of a real chase. There is no mouse. However, their unconscious is projecting into their imagination, so the kitten reacts to what it thinks is there. The total body output, to this altered reality, is better for memory creation, than just pretending a mouse without action. In the process of reacting to the projection it consciously learns and remembers with memory reinforcement of reality. As a human example that is easier to see, if someone was psychotic and saw a lion (wasn't there), their body would react with the same fear as someone seeing a real lion. This deep level sensory reaction would create strong, maybe lifetime memories, compared to someone just pretending. In the case of the first religion projections, it was very natural, having a collective impact on humans, shaping human reactions and memories for the next step; civilization. Essentially, the unconscious mind is the main frame aspect of the brain, capable of much faster data processing than the conscious mind. When we walk, consciousness only has to think command lines. The main frame has to coordinate dozens of muscles. In the case of early religion projection, the main frame outputs to the terminal, which is the conscious mind. This gets consciousness involved in a real time reaction, to help create strong memories, so human consciousness is able to further evolve. The world of projection, by helping evolution into civilization, was as natural as nature, with earliest religions attributing the main frame output to nature spirits. If the nature spirit was in the tree, they might investigate and eat the peach. In modern times, religion is still much more open to the mainframe. Atheism is more like a terminal process, since the modern terminal, through education, is closer to the mainframe of old. But the modern main frame has equally evolved and is still able to data crunch even faster than any terminal.

What I don't understand; the fusion of higher elements, up to iron, is exothermic, or gives off a lot of energy since this heads matter to lowest energy. This means it is energetically favored by nature, to make higher atoms. Why isn't the burning of hydrogen and helium, which give the most exothermic output of all the atom building steps, not enough energy to induce all the exothermic elements to fuse? The modern theory, "this not be favorable in the sun", seems inconsistent with laboratory observation. For example, a modern fission reactor is able to make higher atoms. Uranium is atomic number 92 and we have synthetically made atoms up to atomic number 103, without having to collapse a star. Is the modern theory saying, these scientists have exceeded the sun in the lab and have even rivaled the best supernova? All these synthetic atoms, higher than uranium, are endothermic during formation or need energy to form. It turns out the hardest atoms to make in the universe, are not all that hard to make. We didn't even need the extreme continuous pressures within the solar fusion core. We did it at earth atmospheric pressure. Pressure almost always helps reactions by keeping things closer. Good thing the old timers who made all these higher atoms didn't fall for, "this is impossible we need a supernova", or else they would have had to cover up the ease of higher atom formation, so they don't hurt anyone feelings or be censored.

Atheists can not concede that animals do not have religion. This would make humans, who have evolved the religious charisma, to appear one step higher. This would be unique to humans, but not to all humans. Some would retain the animal way. Logic would imply a fork in the road of human evolution, with one aspect of humanity a direct extension of the apes, by their own admission, and another path with something, extra. This path can do the ape thing, plus that something extra. Proving that animals don't have religion would be as hard as proving that god does not exist. One can never dot all the I's and cross all the t's. The other side can always delay. As such, the burden of proof has to fall on the pro-side (pro-god or pro-animals have religion). It is not up to science to conclusively disprove god by turning billions of stone. It only has to give it a quickie effort. Until positive proof, science can say god does not exist, and I can say animals don't have religion, with atheists an extension of this animal tradition. The ball is in the atheist court to prove they do. There is another consideration. What would happen if an atheist pre-human animal (atheist ancestor) had an hallucination or vision. For all practical purposes, the pragmatic pre-human atheist animal will think he sees something. The UFO seems to enter the sensory systems, but was generated internally by the brain. In other words, say the brain projected, via some natural process, such that the separation between hard sensory reality and the world of dreams, blurs. One reacts to what they see. There is precedent for this, such as a kitten chasing imaginary prey to practice hunting skills, or children having an imaginary friend to develop their imagination, with the unconscious mind helping to shape the conscious mind, using projection onto reality. For example, man made global warming was not based on going outside and looking. It started in the mind, through reading and conceptualizing, to create an alternate reality, that was very real for many. It spread like a virus and was based on consulting electronic oracles. Even atheists have the skill at that point. Animals can not do this skill, since they stay in touch with reality.

Life on earth is dependent on water. Water, in turn, is the second most abundant molecule in the universe, second only to hydrogen. Relative to atoms, the top four atoms of the universe are hydrogen and helium, then oxygen and carbon. Nitrogen is about number eight in relative abundance behind neon and iron. The universe has the basic materials for life at top of its atomic and chemical food chain. The only key atom of life, that is not as abundant as the big four (H,O,C,N) is phosphorous. This atom is needed for DNA, RNA, ATP, etc., As such, based only on the abundance of atoms, one would expect proteins and possible enzymes to be orders of magnitude more common in the universe than genetic replicators. This is still possible but much less likely than proteins.

Humans are the only creatures on earth that have religion. The rest of the critters, including bacteria are atheists. Religion separates humans from animals and puts man into a unique category. Atheism connects humans backwards to the animals, since animals don't have religion. A belief in god requires cognitive skills detached from the sensory systems; imagination. The atheists have shown, god can't be proven via the sensory systems. To manipulate religious concepts cognitively, without any direct sensory input, requires the use of the language, words and concepts. Animals lack such a complex language system and therefore can not do the god thing. By default they are atheists. Animals can do the atheist thing using their sensory systems, cause and effect, and empirical evidence. For example, a dog knows the sound of the door opening, at a given time of day, means the master is home. Based on data collection, the dog can eventually anticipate or predict the coming of the master, within a margin of error. But if the master starts to talk about god, this is over the dog's head, since he can't see or smell god to collect the needed data. I If I took a statue of god to show the dog what I mean, he can see and smell that, but to him all that is a toy he wishes to play fetch with. The dog does not have that extra human specific ability to extrapolate beyond his sensory systems, into an abstraction, which itself extends beyond the limits of the sensory systems. There is nothing wrong with my atheist dog, since he is a good friend. But to discuss religion, one needs to deal with humans with that extra ability, once removed from apes. The apes are atheists.

Insurance pools everyone's money to cover the extra costs of a smaller percentage of people, including all the middlemen. The majority of those paying premiums will never get their money's worth. For most, it is an investment in swamp land with negative return on investment. Think of it logically, if everyone got their money's worth, you could not support all middlemen and all those who use more resources than they pay into the system. We need a lot of sheep for that much extra wool. The tactic used to get a lot of people to invest in a bad economic deal, without most knowing it, is done via fear. We create imaginary scary places in the mind, so enough people pump money into a bad investment. An analogy of the pitch is the human body is like owning a house. It needs basic upkeep or it will end in disrepair. However, if I pitch all the worse cases scenarios of floods, high winds, excessive snow load, etc., I might be able to get you afraid of what might happen. The goal of this pitch, is too get extra people to invest too much money into their houses, to appease the fear, even if it makes no rational economic sense. Since it is hard to avoid this money pit, when all the neighbors are doing it, to make better economic sense of this bad investment, one needs to figure out ways to get their money's worth; closer to break even. One won't get a rebate for not using the system. Therefore, we need to be creative to make better economic sense of all the money we are told to invest that is making a negative return. Many people now use the doctor for more minor things since this makes economic sense, allowing one to get at least some value for all that money down the drain. Because of supply and demand, this extra demand for goods and services, to help make economic sense of a bad deal, causes the overall costs to go up, raising the premiums. The question is how do you get people who are already invested in swamp land to buy even more swamp land? We can use the government, at point of gun (law) to force the investment into the extra swamp land. This restores the excess money needed for all the middlemen and all the over users. There will also be enough excess to add another layer of middlemen, i.e., fund the payroll for hundreds of thousands of government workers. That will take many acres of swamp land. One should be able to tax deduct losses if this is a bad investment; those who pay more than they use and get a negative return.

If you divide a cell, in terms of things that reflect the first and second laws of life, and then the first and second laws of the universe, this creates an interesting way to define the cell. For example, if we compare DNA to RNA, RNA has more degrees of freedom compared to the DNA. The DNA is sort of stuck being a double helix, while RNA can form a double or single helix. It has more freedom. This freedom also allows it to associate with many proteins. The sugars and bases of DNA are also more reduced compared to the RNA. This implies the DNA stores more calories (pound for pound) or is at higher caloric energy. From this I would conclude, when life was just evolving and therefore lower down the scale of the first and second laws of life, due to the 1st and 2nd laws of the universe were dominant, RNA replicators came first since RNA has higher entropy and lower energy. The universe was pushing the other way, with life needing to reach the lower life state first. As the first and second laws of life advanced, DNA was an logical consequence, since it defines lower entropy and higher energy. The methylation of the DNA takes the first and second laws of life one step further, by adding more reduction to the DNA (-CH3), while lowering entropy or degrees of freedom; less active. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe laws of life; movement to lower entropy and higher energy, is not an isolate occurrence within the universe. There is also precedent for this elsewhere. For example, all atoms larger than iron need to absorb energy to be able to form. The entropy of the starting ingredients lowers as electrons, protons and neutrons lower their degree of freedom by becoming bound to these heavy and sluggish atomic states. But unlike higher atoms than iron, which represent lower entropy and increase energy to become more or less static, life creates a dynamic balance between the two opposing directions. Life creates a situation where it own potentials opposes the 1st and 2nd laws of the universe. This creates two countering potentials, so the 1st and 2nd laws of the universe will need to act. Reaction, such as with metabolism, creates energy output and increasing entropy. This then creates a situation where the 1st and 2nd laws of life now need to act since it creates a potential with the laws of life. Life slightly favors its own laws, even if it is part of the universe, net pulling away from the the laws of the universe. For example, let us start with an egg. The chicken sits on the egg to make it warm, thereby increasing its energy. This helps the laws of life. This will increase the potential with the laws of the universe, which would like to lower energy and increase energy. The cellular integration begins to increase metabolism, to reflect the potential with universe, which lowers internal energy and increasing entropy via CO2 production. This increase the potential with the laws of life, which then will act through synthesis into ordered energy containing molecules. Cells are set up with both the life and universal potentials represented, dueling, back and forth, simultaneously, with the overall pendulum swinging higher and higher, but slightly in the direction of life as the egg grows into a chicken.

The problem with UV is it can induce chemical reactions. Visible light defines less energy, allowing most chemicals to remain stable. If the eye could use UV, the receptors would have to be chemically tougher or would need to be constantly renewed due to UV damage. One might then lose some subtly in the visible range, due to the chemical armor. If you look at our skin, if we filter out the UV, the skin stays softer when bathed only in visible light. If we add the UV back, our skin can turn leathery due to chemical reactions and may need to peel and regenerate. I assume evolution tried this and said, too much expense for small gain. There was no advantage.

The democrats tend to be more depraved. The reason is, a wide range of behavior, which would cause most republicans to be forced out by the media and/or its own members, have less impact on the democrats. The democrat depravity meter is calibrated differently. For example, there are members of the democratic party, still in important positions, who have taken bribes, failed to pay their taxes, had affairs with office staff, etc. These things would be career enders for republicans, since the party demands a higher standard. With the bar so low for the democrats, one often wonders how low is low.

A free market health system is a dual edge sword. On the one hand, the free market has the capacity to create the most efficient use of resources. But the free market is not in the business of charity or altruism, therefore it will also try to create unneeded markets; desired markets. For example, liability lawyers work within the free market. Their lawyering is not done entirely for altruism or charity. It is to make money. They have worked hard to create demands for services which, tend to make everything more expansive. Their cut of the pie adds costs to the entire health care industry. This is not an isolated pollutant within the free market system. The public sector sees such smoke, bellowing from the factory of the free market, as the free market produces many useful things, efficiently. If the opportunity is there and/or someone figures out a new angle, someone will seize the opportunity. That is the nature of the free market. It is not a charity organization. It is there to moves resources for profit. The private sector is not perfect either. It has its own smoke bellowing, as its factory produces some useful things. The motivation of the private sector is power and not money. Money is a tool for power. The more money controlled, but not owned, the more power. Socialize medicine tends to be more spartan than free market medicine. It will get rid of frivolous free market choice. However, it tends to go even below that, since the less we have to divide, the more we can influence people. That is power 1.0. If I had one sandwich in my hand and a hundred hungry people I can keep their attention. I can make them jump up and down. I can get special attention if I want. If the free market opens up a sub shop so there are more sandwiches the attention is divided. Socialized medicine gets rid of one smoke but creates another. Both sides can see the smoke from the other side, but neither can see their own smoke. Or if they see their own smoke, they can show it, since that smoke is their motivation. That is why the vote was divided down middle. I don't trust either side to do the right thing, which is to minimize the smoke coming from both camps. The first pollution abatement step should be the lawyers. But this pollution is supported by the power structure.

Life moves in the direction of lower entropy and higher energy. This is the first and second laws of life. Life is also acted upon by the first and second laws of the universe which try to move life toward higher entropy and lower energy. Let me give an example. We will start with a small strawberry plant. As it grows, it will gain caloric value over time. We can prove this by placing specimens in a calorimeter as a function of time. As it grows, it will also absorb water and CO2, which initially have the degrees of freedom to circulate in the atmosphere. The plants will lower this entropy by fixing these into the material of the plant. The first and second law of the universe are still in effect. Nature will try to lower the energy and increase the entropy of the strawberries. This is done with a rabbit. They will eat and chew the strawberry, increasing the strawberry entropy. They will also metabolize it, lowering the strawberry energy value. In the process of satisfying the 1st and 2nd laws of universe, the rabbit will also absorb materials for own growth, implicit of atomic fixation, lowering entropy and increasing stored energy. The 1st and 2nd laws are still in effect, so the rabbits needs to increase entropy and lower energy. This is done by the hunter, who shoots it and then cuts it up and cooks it, increasing the entropy. Cooking increases entropy by denaturing the protein. This is chewed for further increases in entropy and digested to lower the energy. But in the process, aspects are also absorbed into the hunters body; lowering atomic entropy into fixation and increasing energy via stored caloric value. If you look at the DNA and a mutation, the improper base pairing will increase entropy since it adds new degrees of freedom. But since this is implicit of improper base pairing, the result will increase the energy of the DNA. The DNA and evolution, acts like a bridge between life and the universe satisfying the first law of life and second law of the universe at the same time.

Back in the 1970's there was a fad called the pet rock. Essentially an entrepreneur came up with the idea of selling "rocks" as pets. It sounds silly, but with good marketing this became a cultural hit. Although this was meant for children's fun and entrepreneur profit, because it became a fast moving fad, there was eventually pressure among the children to get on board. One did not want to be the only child without one. With supply moderate and demand amplified the way it was, demand exceeded supply, until it was hard to find pets rocks. Many children were pained by the prospect of being left out of the fad. Their mother then felt their pain and made an extra effort searching for pet rocks in all the stores. What had been only a fun fad became an almost perceived necessity. The mothers who could not help relieve the anxiety of their child, passed on their anxiety to their mates. Back then males were more masculine mined such that common sense and practical mindedness allowed them to keep a cool head. Dad came up with a practical solution, why not get a rock from the yard. The entire fad is just a rock one pretends is a pet. But to mother and child, that would never do, since it had to be a genuine pet rock. With common sense, trumped by the social movement, there was social anxiety. If you go back to that time, there was also health care. But it did not have the irrational necessity of today. The new medical pet rock would takes many more decade until culture was irrational enough.

The universe follows the 1st and 2nd laws; heads toward lowest energy and highest entropy. Life, on the other hand, moves itself, in the opposite direction, while still being acted on by the 1st and 2nd laws. For example, each time a cell divides to make two daughter cells, atoms in the environment, which might move freely at higher entropy, become incorporated into the growing cellular order. This lowers degrees of freedom. These materials also store food energy, causing the energy value (calorimetric) of the cell to increase as it grows. Life is not forming itself into disorder or trying to lower its overall energy so it disappears into atoms. It goes the opposite way. The 1st and 2nd laws of the rest of the universe, are still in effect, pushing the cell toward lowest energy and higher entropy. This helps to drive what we call call metabolism. But the two universal laws can never close the deal all the way. The cell can not be pushed by the 1st and second law to burn itself into lowest energy or highest entropy like a piece of coal in air. Life keeps growing, multiplying and even evolving to separate itself even more from the 1st and 2nd laws. Going from single to multicellular further increased the level of cellular order and the amount of caloric energy that was built up by one life form. The first and second laws of life are to always increase life's energy value and always lower its biological entropy value, as time progresses. But the 1st and 2nd laws of the universe are also in effect, so such things as mutations will constantly appear. These increase entropy. But only those mutations which can satisfy the 1st and 2nd laws of life, progress the direction of life. If you look at cancer, these genetic and cellular transformations display higher entropy or disorder relative from the cells they came. The also have very high metabolism and therefore lower energy quicker. Cancer does a good job satisfying the 1st and 2nd laws of the universe. With death life decomposes back to atoms implicit of highest entropy and lowest energy.

I think science should be even more separated. Science should be separated from some secular interests. Secular interests include political and private influences, which are driven by power and money and not always by the truth. These can lead science around by its "willie". For example, the political ideal of "green", led science around by its willie. If the goal had been the truth in nature, everyone would have left the options open. But since power and money was leading, science needed to provide the image of a done deal before these secular interests could move ahead with construction. If religion came in to fight against power and money, it is only because science became a puppet, with the hand of power and money up its butt. Consider what would happen, if science was chartered to be detached from both religious and secular interests, sort of like the separation of science, religion and secular. Science would lose funding from power and money and need to depend more on donations. The influential groups would fund their own secular version of science to compete. This version of secular science, to be cost effective, needs to have a goal in mind, which that science needs to prove or create. The new version of "pure" science, lets the data accumulate, before settling on reality. It is not goal orientated but truth orientated. The first version would need to prove global warming, before part 2 or scale up could begin. The second would continue to collect data to see where the truth moves.