Mr Skeptic

The largest problems: 1) Yes, we could concentrate the human population, in this could increase efficiency. However, our food, energy, and material needs cannot be concentrated, and if your plan was to reduce our footprint this will have little effect. 2) The air conditioning costs would be enormous, or the ventilation system would have to be impressive. Due to the low surface area, all that heat produced by bodies, lightbulbs, etc., will need to be actively removed, even in the winter. 3) Speaking of lightbulbs, there would be no chance of using sunlight for illumination. So, we need lightbulbs and vitamin D supplementation, and possibly need more eyeglasses (may be related to light brightness and lightbulbs don't compare to sunlight). 4) Concentrating humans increases risk from disease, terrorists, and accidents/disasters.

Physical reality doesn't "break down". In fact, that's just gibberish.

Well with both the genetics and culture mingling, it is only a matter of time before race becomes meaningless. It will simply continue the trend of decreasing significance, although where it will become officially "insignificant" is hard to say. Also, there is a little resistance to the mingling, since people tend to marry people of their own race, and also tend to prefer people of their own race (even when not blatantly biased). I'd guess about 100 years to irrelevance of race, within the US.

You could dunk them in vodka, if you have small enough specimens. You can buy 95% "rubbing alcohol" in the store or pharmacy, but you can't drink that stuff. It contains stuff other than ethanol, which will make it toxic to you (of course, toxic is kind of the point when preserving). Check the bottle, as not all of the "rubbing alcohol" will be mostly ethanol (ethyl alcohol). What it will be is a preservative of some kind. Also, if you get the 95% stuff, you may want to dilute it. Add a little less than 1 part water to 5 parts 95% alcohol.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Take mathematics, for example, which is considered non-fiction. It simply makes a bunch of stuff up, and then draws conclusions based on the premises it made up. An even better example would be Einstein's famous thought experiments. They consisted of "experiments" set up in one's mind, because doing them in real life would have been either impossible or extremely impractical.These would be comparable to Jesus' parables -- not literally true, but you can learn something from it anyways. So long as it is clear what is literally true and what is metaphorical, there is no problem. Unfortunately, unless such is clearly spelled out, later generations might not be able to distinguish which was meant how, even if it would have been obvious when written. And so we have, for example, people who think that everything in the Bible is literally true, from Genesis to Revelations (shudder) -- except the parables. Why not the parables? They are labeled as metaphorical.

For example, if a large group of people were to decide to boycott any construction company that built the thing.

Defense (and transport too) are a sort of indirect weapon. They increase the ability to fight.

The problems are thus: 1) They require huge amounts of electrical power, and so are unlikely to be of use in anything other than nuclear powered battleships or stationary defences. 2) The rails wear out too quickly.

Any amount of cancer is the wrong amount. Telomeres are just one line of defense against cancer. What makes cancer a problem is not so much that the cells can reproduce indefinitely as that they reproduce too much too quickly. If cells go rogue and start reproducing like crazy, normally they would hit the reproduction limit set by the telomere length, and then die off. But if they also find a way around that (telomerase enzyme), then they can keep on growing, and you have cancer. Of course we also do need the telomerase enzymes otherwise our stem cells and reproductive cells would have trouble. Maybe we could take a hint from the naked mole rat. They are nearly immune to cancer, as their cells have an additional mechanism that prevents them from reproducing if they are packed too tightly (contact inhibition). If we could replace telomeres with contact inhibition then perhaps we could have immortal cells without getting too much cancer. But cell aging still just one aspect of aging.

So you consider the authors of the Bible to be eyewitnesses hostile to Jesus? Do you even realize that these things aren't even firsthand accounts, that in fact most of them can't be? And also don't forget that everything in the Bible had to be approved by the Church in the 4th Century.

Things are colored because they absorb a specific range of photon frequencies (colors). This relates to photon energy because it is directly related to the frequency. Certain molecules can absorb a certain photon energy. This does relate to the electron configuration. Whatever colors the molecule cannot absorb, it reflects. This is the color you see it as.

Well, could save a guaranteed 1/2 and an expected 3/4, by having every other person guess the color of the hat ahead of them.

So basically, the claim is that god is the universe? Or, God is no more than a definition?

I'll respond to the less preachy of these. Please note that your points make no sense to anyone unless that person knows and accepts the Catholic teachings. So, I am God? I am the only thing that by its essence can be sure exists, and can be the only one. The proof of this is I think therefore I am, although I can't prove what manner of existence I have. There is nothing else I can prove exists. Note that some people think themselves gods. The idea that God must exist because he's perfect makes no more sense than the idea that the perfect invisible pink unicorn must exist because it is perfect. Many religions believe in one or creators, and they have different properties than the God of the Bible. So who's right and who's wrong? Also, just because one person says the various gods are one and the same, that doesn't make it so. Others equally think that their god is different from the Pope's. So the branches of Christianity that do not baptize until they are old enough to make the decision themselves, during that time are infidels.

The ways I understand it, so long as your cells can reproduce fast enough, this should eliminate any aging at the cellular level. Creatures with indeterminate growth often have long lifespans. Trees in particular, have a very thin layer of rapidly reproducing cells and can live for a long time. Of course, for us animals we'd have to scrap and recycle the cells, and this would have to include brain cells and our gigantic spinal nerve cells. We also have an extracellular matrix, which can't be dealt with at the cellular level, and likewise any scar tissue or accumulation of contaminants would be a problem. Also, our cells have a built-in limit to reproduction (see telomeres), probably as a cancer prevention mechanism.

Which God? There's more than one god with claims to have created the universe, you know. The Aztec gods have Christianity's god beat, having made 5 universes rather than just 1.

It occurs to me that I didn't answer this fully. The advantages of not believing in gods are about as numerous as there are gods. Disbelief in the god of the Old Testament, for example, has the advantage that I don't need to sacrifice animals to him. Disbelief in Moloch means I don't need to sacrifice my children. Disbelief in Tlaloc means I don't need to sacrifice other people's children. I'm sure our more deity knowledgeable members can expand this list. By disbelieving in these deities you, too, can gain these advantages. That has zero economy of thought value -- God is entirely irrelevant. Belief in him makes no falsifiable predictions, so can explain nothing.

Hm, I got that from an article that seems to have given me a somewhat distorted picture. However, people are concerned about this: http://jmm.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/48/7/613.pdf The problem is that in some cases resistance to one thing can imply resistance to other things, usually via limited uptake resistance.

It's easy to would have made the most popular choices when you're not the one making them. (It's equally easy to would have made the least popular choices).

Any online IQ test is going to at best be an extremely rough estimate, and at worst they are trying to make money off of you usually by offering a more detailed explanation of what a genius you are. It is my understanding that it is impossible to offer a real IQ test online, since the setting is unknown and no one can observe you.

Well, usually the problem is not stuff colonizing your hands but just sitting there until you touch something, a food, your mouth, pick your nose, rub your eye, etc., or a doorknob to leave it for someone else. There's probably no way to make your hands deadly to bacteria without doing some really foolish or nasty things. So, washing occasionally is the way to go. Also, antibiotic resistant bacteria tend to be resistant to sanitizers, it goes with the niche.

For one of your questions, asks about the "general public". I think that there would be a huge difference between the "general public" that does not have access to the internet vs the one that does. That is, the "internet community".

The ozone layer is a gas, not some sort of airtight container. Gravity keeps our atmosphere from floating into space, and this includes our ozone. Oh, and ozone is also a greenhouse gas.

What you're thinking of is called biological immortality. It seems a few creatures on earth actually do have this property. Acquiring it for humans would be difficult, though technically not impossible.

That's probably not so much a problem, since it is mostly about people not noticing things rather than noticing things that aren't there. I guess it could mean some people miss an obvious cause for something. More interestingly, experiments show that you can modify people's memory of an event by describing it to them. For example, people change their speed estimates in a collision if you ask how fast the cars were moving when they bumped vs smashed into each other. You can also make them more likely to remember seeing broken glass.