Jebus

This is going off topic but to be honest, I don't think there was any real topic to begin with. I'm not that familiar with England's politics. I was mainly criticizing individual protestors who demanded that Saddam stay in power. The US helped the afghans fight off the Russians, but there was no Taliban back then. Many of the afghans we supported in the 80's were of the Northern Alliance who continue to despise and fight against the Taliban. BTW, I never mentioned Afghanistan, only Iraq. Yes, America is responsible for propping up the Ba'ath regime in the first place, all the more reason for the Americans to fix their mistake and owe up to their responsibility. Keep in mind that America is a democracy, its regime changes every 4-8 years and I wouldn't criticize the present government for the actions of the previous one, that would just be ridiculous.

George Galloway is a dictator loving, terrorist sympathizing, hypocritical, morally inept bigot. The right has its fair share of delusions but the left seems to think co-existence with totalitarian, theocratic fascists is not only possible but preferred.

I couldn't read the entire title and I thought it read, "Gorillas dismantle poacher," but this is good too lol.

Well I must say, I feel like going on a bloody rampage right now as my absence of certain beliefs fails to inhibit my ability or will to do so.

Wow, thanks Suxamethonium. That was exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

There is risk in everything, should we ban nanotechnology as well?

Yeah, I was going to touch on that too, but you said it better than I would have.

On the subject of having to buy seeds every year, the seeds are patented. How would you feel if someone was making money with the products you created?

Ironic that this thread started because of a different thread going off topic...

Well maybe for the US.., but according to this data and this report, it's quite the opposite.

This is exactly what happend in Africa. Environmental groups went to huge lengths to scare the African nations into banning GM foods. As a result, thousands died from malnutrition or starvation. Now they are getting things in order; Africa no longer wants to do it the, "natural way," they've been doing it for decades and it hasn't been working.

This has do to with regulation and the same problems can arrise with conventional breeding techniques. A way to deal with this problem, as outlined in the Nuffieldbioethics Report, would be to, "include the use of multiple resistance genes or the cultivation of small areas of susceptible crop varieties to provide refuges in which the non-resistant pathogen or pest may persist," to delay or even prevent resistance breakdown.

The argument that it would have negative effects on the environment is pretty weak. GM foods can actually increase biodiversity, with less use of pesticides, various insects will no longer die, so any insect that is not harmful to the plant would be spared. Also with an increase in yields, that means less area for farming, which leaves more area for wildlife. There is way to much controversy over GM foods. Whenever there is a new scientific industry, or development, people are very quick to demonize it.

Whats wrong with clones? It would be like having a twin. I think genetically engineering humans might have some very applied benefits to our health. Imagine removing (or turning off) a gene responsible for cancer? My knowledge of genetics is obviously very little and what I just said probably made no sense...

I hope there are some pharmacists and pharmacologists on this site. I have narrowed my choice to the two but can't yet decide. I've herd pharmacology is better than pharmacy based on the type of work, but pharmacists get paid more. Which has the better prospects? I live in Canada, if that makes any difference.

This guy is a troll.

I'm worried we're not spending enough money in science.

Apart from what we are doing already with sanctions, we could do what the US and Britain did to prevent Saddam Hussein from getting the most powerful weapon on Earth, intervene. North Korea is slowly imploding, they can barely feed themselves and are highly incompetent when it comes to rockets lol, so intervening would be unnecessary.

Since this guy has nothing but UFO sightings in his uploads, it must be real.....

There is also another pattern with the example you used. Your chances of dying in combat (or war) has decreased. There are conflicts but it seems that the more destructive the weapon, the less it is used. So if this historical pattern does continue, I'm not terribly worried. Of course what you say is possible, we could create something too destructive for us to use. Though, this is not inevitable.

"Well, shouldn't the discipline that brought us nuclear weapons..." Ok so not all science, just physics? Your argument is, because science (physics) led to the atomic bomb, we can no longer do science that might in some way be bad, or because it costs a lot of money... You know there are regulations right? There are inherent risks in almost any new development, that doesn't mean we should abandon it. So far we have been smart enough to manage our power, considering we are not all dead. Besides, North Korea wouldn't use a bomb on the US. They know if they do, their nation will be obliterated. Also the US owes too much money to China for them to start a war, and America has all their stuff lol.

Typist, you are lumping all scientists into some group called, "atomic weapon makers," this is complete bullshit. Many of the scientists involved in the atomic weapon programs (not just the US) lobbied to their governments to halt the further developments of such nuclear weapons. Ironically the man responsible for the Tsar won the Nobel Peace prize lol, for his protests against the use of nuclear weapons. Also I'm rather glad America developed the weapon before anyone else. The way things have gone, considering we are still alive, makes me contempt. Now, like it's been said before, just because we don't know of any tangible benefits that would directly result from any type of funding, doesn't mean we should abandon it. We do research so we can know things that we did not know before, and as our understanding of the basic principles that govern our universe grows, the results will eventually be beneficial, as they have so often in the past. This is why Carl Sagan stressed for funding to be given to basic research in higher education. Science is overlapping. Would you have funded Maxwell? Based on what you have said, I guess not. "Maxwell’s equations have had a greater impact on human history than any ten presidents". -Carl Sagan Plus, we are more than capable of doing two things at once. We are working towards eradicating poverty and giving youths access to school, at the same time as conducting research.

The immune system is not a, "muscle," it is a system, hence the term, "immune SYSTEM!" It is rather complex and there are several variables that contribute to your immunity: skin, diet, gut bacteria, etc. If someone is deficient in say, vitamin D, or C, their immune system would not function as well as someone who does get adequate nutrients. Most people (in developed countries) get enough of those nutrients. Just because you havent been sick in years does not mean your immune system is stronger than someone else. What is your profession? Do you work at home? Alone? I've herd teachers say, "my husband always eats food without washing his hands, but I stay clean and I get sick far more often then he does." Well, if the husband works a job that doesn't involve constant contact with several people everyday (manual labour), and since the wife is a teacher, who is in contact with several people every day, then she has a higher risk of contacting a virus. Eating expired food will not give your immunity a boost, neither will eating yogurt btw. I know you didn't mention the latter but I thought I'd throw it in anyway. The only real way we can strengthen our immune systems (as far as we know) is by getting vaccinated.

Any kind of innovation that has benefited mankind was due to the basic understanding of the various principles that govern it. The more we understand molecules/cells/atoms, the more we are able to develop better drugs, technology, etc. No doubt that poverty is a problem, but things are getting better. Africa is waaaaay better today then it was a few decades ago. Less people live in poverty today (per capita) then ever before. I think the main reason for that is science and technology. If one nation discovers/creates something completely new, eventually, several other nations will benefit from it as-well. Just because we almost came close to destroying ourselves doesn't mean we should forego the pursuit of knowledge, rather learn from out mistakes to ensure bad things don't happen (again).