CharonY

What I think is that one has to be very precise in contextualizing what you are actually looking at. Like any other scientific question it is relevant to disassemble an issue into pieces that can be investigated. I think we can agree that culture is a very broad term and in my mind not fine-grained enough to find anything of relevance. For example, assume that in a particular population (take any classifier, ethnicity, religion, whatever) domestic violence is more frequently than in another (incidentally this is something where little good comparative statistics is available but many have preconceptions). If we just state it is a culture of violence, we have learned precisely nothing. Instead, we would have to figure out what the reasons behind violence in group 1 vs group 2 are. What external and internal factors and stressors may or may not be involved (income, job distribution, psychological stress, nutrition, familial relationships, social connections or lack thereof, history of alcoholism and so on). Even then, we are barely scratching the surface, but by leading the discussion using these rough identifiers at reduces it to soundbites. As you have noted, people from each cultural background can have abhorrent ideas. Another thing that I dislike about culture or ideals is that people often mistake the ideals of their society and benchmark people from outside of their cultural circle against this ideal rather than against reality. What I am saying is that we should look at contents, instead of labels. With regards to mentality, I think that while true, the question is under which circumstances are these mentalities created? On USA vs Canada, it is an interesting perspective. I cannot say I had the same experience (Canadians seem to be a bit muted in general in terms of national pride), most of the time I have discussions that were like, yeah I am Canadian/Insert US state here but my great-great parents were from (insert European country here). I have heard that in Quebec it may be different, though. Likewise, Canadians from different visible ethnicity that I have met all declared themselves Canadian. Exceptions were freshly immigrants to either US or Canada. But then again these are only personal anecdotes. I do have noticed a massive difference in the status of native Americans/First nations, though.

That is entirely hyperbole and unfortunately an argument that has been repeated in certain circles without much in-depth thought of context. First of all, if demographics of a country changes, it is obvious that the society will change. Be it that we have an aging society an ethnically homogeneous one or a diverse one. Some feel that there is a status quo that has to be preserved, but looking at even recent history it is clear that societies were never static. In contrast, especially in modern times values and cultural norms have changed more rapidly in the past, to a large extent due to modern means of communication. If a population is declining by choice (i.e. no wanting to have children) what is the issue or solution? Forcing people to bear children? And this line of thinking highlights another issue. There is the assumption that Muslims cannot be part of the general (Western) population (we have to count them differently) and as long as these thoughts persist, how can we expect integration? The problem with terms like "values" or "culture" is that they are very vague and subject to changes, yet everyone thinks they know what it means without questioning (reminds me of something...). For example, if you meet a modern well-educated Iranian coming from Tehran and discuss world views, do you think that you will agree on more or less things than someone from your population from, say 60 years ago? Or 70? (think in terms of controversial topics such as LBGT rights, role of women, anti-semitism etc.). Check out colleges, it is great place for meeting highly educated foreigners. Or how about a comparison with contemporary groups of your chosen ethnicity that are considered fringe (say, radical revolutionists or neo nazis)? The big issue of using things like culture or values is that they are so vague that they can always be conveniently be used (by either side) as a divisor and hence prevent integration. This is not even touching the issue that at least in Europe culture is often seen to be interchangeable with ethnicity which makes it very hard for immigrants to be properly accepted (even after several generations). What should be an uniting aspect (and in that regard I think North America is doing a better job) should be the constitution in which the values of a nation are openly presented and against which behavior can and should be benchmarked individually and there should be no difference in the treatment of citizens, regardless of their faith (which, incidentally is typically something anchored in most constitutions). Of course, certainly particularities should be addressed, but it is dangerous for example to simplify these issues simply down to culture. The role of women, for example has changed markedly in Western societies, even within the last decades. Treating Islam as monolithic unchangeable construct has the danger of being a self-fulling prophecy, rather, modernization should be supported and embraced, but stating that this can be done due to the mythical "culture" is self-defeating. Note that I am specifically addressing that as in former discussions in Germany a number of politicians have proclaimed that just following the constitution is insufficient, but rather that people also have to follow Judeo-Christian values (which, in some way, is quite hypocritical). Using that line of thought, you can as easily sow division as proclaiming that everyone has to follow the one true religion. Mind you, I am not saying that this one-sided. However the point is that it is more constructive to get people together that see and work on commonalities rather than standing one side and accusing the other (whichever side one is on). That being said, looking at various estimates the Muslim population in Europe is supposed to to increase within the next 20 years by 2% (8 up from 6%). But again, this is just a minor distraction from rather complex issues that, unfortunately, tend to be often fueled by fear.

The point about preservatives is that it is just a compound that minimizes bacterial growth. Depending on the compound and consumed amount it may or may not have negative impact on human health. Which pretty much applies to all food. Thus the blanket statement that preservatives are bad for you is simply wrong. Or at least about as incorrect as stating that fruit is bad for you.

Not the way I suspect you may think about it. Let's forget about itch for the moment. It is easier to think in terms of a sensory neuron that sense a signal. What is genetically controlled are presence of proteins, including receptors (to sense chemicals for example) and ion channels (to create the action potential). However, it is in a way a tautology, if those and other proteins were not present, it would not be a sensory neuron (actually it is a bit more complicated, but that would be somewhat advanced). Cells generally have a very dynamic protein turnover, meaning that proteins are getting produced and removed constantly. Thus, for a sensory neuron to perceive anything (itch, pain whatever) it requires active gene expression and protein production. So in that context it would be a yes, but quite a meaningless ones as it just means that in order to function the cell needs a functional nucleus (as opposed to simpler red blood cells, for example). There are some situations (including long-term potentiation) where altered gene expression does play a specific role, but I think that is actually quite a more advanced concept and goes beyond your question.

The ability displayed are for the most part physically impossible. Just calling it sci-fi does not make it science. And bioengineering is not magic. There are hard limitations to what is biologically possible. So yes, any ability that I can think of is pure fantasy. An exception may be becoming quite hairy. Still science fiction, but at least within the realm of possible.

There is evidence of inheritability of certain conditions. However, there are no specific associations with specific alleles. There are various reasons, including (to my knowledge) that most likely mental disorders are complex traits that are not directly determined by genetics, but are the result of genetic and environmental aspects. I.e. even if one is genetically susceptible to certain disorders one may never actually develop it and vice versa. Furthermore, characterization and classification of mental disorders are very complicated and similar symptoms may be related to completely different molecular/physiological/neuronal causes.

I doubt that this the idea behind it. There are a few things that appear to be more likely to me (all speculative, of course). The first is to use it as propaganda/recruiting tool. A second but related aspect is incite internal conflicts in the targeted countries with the Muslim minorities. A third, but probably not expected goal is to leverage these conflicts to limit the offensive capabilities of these countries against ISIS. Just to be clear, there is not a single aspect that makes a territorial grab likely (i.e. man power, military supremacy, support from separatist movement or, heck, even just geography).

Do you really suggest that Isis is trying to make a territorial grab in France? How does that even begin to make sense? Edit: cross-posted. Was referring to post 51. Moon, I think we are touching on what I mentioned earlier. The creation of fanatic groups is not due to crazyness either by the leaders or the followers. Rather, it falls under the broader aspect of propaganda to further political goals. Symptoms, not causes. Based on historic evidence, pretty much any ideology can be adapted to inspire followers and legitimizing bloodshed.Religion just happened to be a terribly convenient one as most demand a certain amount of obsequiousness from the followers towards the religious leaders.

There is quite a lot out there on the psychology and neurophysiology of pain perception. But of course one would need to read up on it, instead of making things up.

The mechanism is very different. The claws do not retract beneath the dermis. Besides, the actual superpower is rapid healing, the claws cut through the skin every time. Either way it is pure fantasy not remotely rooted in reality. You could as well ask whether people will ever develop spellcasting skills.

I think in some ways Islam is just a convenient vehicle. Currently, the Isis and other factions that utilize terror are in conflict with Western Countries and using Islam as a justification for their action is a way to rally the actors. If there was no religion I have little doubt that those in charge will find or create other justifications, be it ethnicity, culture, ideology or whatever. In some ways I think that focusing on that aspect is a bit of a distraction. Islam or religion does not lead to terrorism itself (otherwise the world would look very different). Rather, it is about politics and power. I do think that any ideology if framed "correctly" can be used to attract and justify violent actions. Left-wing ideologist (depending on inclination based on Marx, Lenin or Mao) have inspired numerous groups. In Rwanda (potentially fake) ethnicity (i.e. Hutu and Tutsi) was used to inspire genocide etc. I think there are a number of things that are generally playing into this. People can be turned to violence rather easily. Not everyone, of course. But given the right circumstances, many otherwise decent people, can turn to violence or at least condone violent actions.It is easy to think that people like hooligans, neo nazis, extremists or KKK members are just the fringe or crazies. However, outside their ideologies they are probably fairly normal. It is also (fairly) easy to convince people to condone certain types of violence against certain groups. Eugenics was quite accepted before WWII in most Western countries, for example. Now, if the society as a whole (as Western societies, for example) is fairly peaceful, these actions are unlikely to happen en masse. The problem is if people do not feel empowered by the society, but rather suppressed (real or imagined). In these cases anti-societal movements or just anything that makes them feel not to be the losers will become attractive. And again, in historic context I do not see a fundamental difference in what the ideology is in detail. Buddhism, for example is a fairly peaceful religion. Its doctrine is almost impossible to align with terror or murder. Yet, there are is violence committed or incited by Buddhist monks (Myanmar being a current example). Of course, they need to spin it differently than Islamists as to my knowledge they cannot refer to scripture. Yet, the result is still violence and death. To summarize, whether Islam is an easier tool to justify violence than other religions or ideologies is, IMO, only of minor relevance. Provided with sufficient motivation nearly everything can be used as justification. At the basis of this are unfortunate things like human nature (the negative parts, including fear) and manipulative power plays (at least for sustained movements). In many ways this reminds of a common, but ubiquitous strategy of using associated labels to shift discussion towards these labels. E.g. labeling something left or right in instead of discussing the policies in detail. Of course, highlighting radical Islam does make sense in so far as currently for Western (and some other) countries it is the most organized form of terrorism. Yet I do think that we should not lose perspective on the matter and fall into the trap of assuming that symptoms are the disease.

Indeed. It is not coincidence that religious terror attacks are all attached to political conflicts. There is a general issue when a subset of populations is disenfrenchised because they do not feel part of the main population (for various reasons, including being) which makes them susceptible to recruitment to these political conflicts under a common ideological banner (Marxism used to be the rage, now Islam). I suspect psychologically there also may be similar things going on in mass shooters, except the danger is that using ideology or religion as an outlet it makes it easier to make people follow through (as they will be actively encouraged). For the leaders, they are just disposable tools and as usual I have my doubts whether they are actually in for the ideology or for their own benefit.

I have not seen confirmation yet, but it appears to be likely. I just hope people will realize that fear is discord is precisely what those terrorists want and deny them their victory.

So what? A lot of people do not finish their degrees. The failure rate is often higher in certain degrees than in others. Also, more and more people get into universities and since long there has been a pressure to increase graduation rates. But why would that in any way pertain to justifying or denying he existence of other degrees? How would you know if a degree is over saturated? Looking at employment? And again, have you actually bothered to look at data? You do know that gut feeling and extrapolation thereof does not qualify as critical thinking? You do remember your original claims? The one about that joke career that apparently has a lower or equal unemployment rate as engineering students? Would that not make you stop and try to revisit your claims? Let me summarize a few things for you, in case you forget what you wrote. as I already find it quite hard to follow the arguments. A) College is for careers. As others have noted that was not the mission of colleges (if you like it or not) nor is the structure set up for that. That it has become an important element for having a career and that many people choose to take it as part of career building does not change the fact why and how a college is set up. An institution of higher education, not a school for vocational training. B) Non-BS degrees do not add to career building or much less than STEM bachelors Even if you exclusively look at college from a career perspective, data does not line up with your claims. And luckily we do have data on that. Regardless on discipline (and even country), BA and BS holders (or their equivalent) have lower unemployment rate than the average population. Now you can be even more narrow-minded than that and claim that only those with the highest employment rate should exist. But then you will see a number of social sciences outperforming certain STEM areas. And in many cases where the STEM outperform other degrees it is by only a few percentages. If these differences should define what degrees should be available, Engineering and Sciences would lose out to Health and Education, for example. Also the examples you provided indicate that you actually have not researched the market. As I mentioned, two of your examples, Architecture as a "good" career (together with STEM) and Recreation as a joke career do have high and low unemployment rates, respectively. Except, in 2013 the Architecture has some of the highest unemployment rates (12.8/9.3 using the same metrics as above) whereas Recreation some of the lowest. Both are somewhat related to actual jobs, so it is clear that this alone does not define what makes a degree marketable. C) A bachelors degree alone should be sufficient to get a gaduate [sic] a decent job in the market. The market has decided otherwise. Unemployment rate in the USA was around 7.5% in 2013. The unemployment rate of young Engineering graduates was barely better. 7.4. The trend improves markedly when looking at college students with experience (i.e. age 30 and up). So either way a bachelor alone is not the job provider. Period. D) How can you argue that a BA/BS in outdoor recreation, sports studies, creative writing, art history and eventually history, pyschology, and even english can lead to a sustainable, professional career for a college grad. Easy. Look at data. If you have a graduate in, say social sciences, and you ask them that question, that is what they would do. Look at historic unemployment rates, conduct surveys etc. You know, apply critical thinking skills. Take history, the difference between engineering and history graduates is 2-1.8%. Do you really want to argue that this difference is highly significant? If you do, then you have to throw out electrical engineering as well, as they have identical unemployment rates (with experience). So yeah, to me it is a very easy argument if we just look at the career side. Actually, this whole argument is a great argument for a broad education. See, the argument from OP are basically derived from a narrow perspective gained from personal experience. Just because in an engineering degree the broader impact of higher education on society (and also employment prospects) is not discussed in a wider context, it appears that anything deviating from that presumed norm would be less desirable or effective. However, data shows that it is not the case. If one interacts more with people in a variety of businesses and senior graduates from other disciplines you would see easily the breadth of applicable job opportunities. Look at consultants, which is a job with a broad range of required skills but often little specialization (with exceptions) they do take everything from creative writing to psychology to sciences to cover as long as the candidate has a good fit. A broader education would (ideally) help in developing general/transferable hard and soft skills. Just because the path is less obvious, it does not mean it exists. And even in STEM, now more than ever, you will have to take the same perspectives as job opportunities are in flux. What it means is that STEM graduates now have to learn what other disciplines (with exception) where forced to realize a long time ago. It is the transferable skills that count in today's job market.

Sooo. What are your assumptions based on? Aside the fact that in some colleges the lines between BA and BS are not that clear, are you implying that e.g. architects have better job opportunities than those studying foreign languages, for example?

In addition, only a tiny amount of water is stored in the atmosphere (less than 0.05%). Thus the atmosphere cannot act as a significant reservoir to hold fresh water. One critical point is that large downpours can actually reduce the amount of fresh water that is available as the ability to retain it is lower and much is lost due to movement to the ocean.

In many cases the precise mechanisms and efficiency is a bit obscure, so I doubt that you can develop a simple model in which you can derive the precise efficiency. What is typically done is to focus on plants that grow well in a region, test for tolerance of the contaminant in question and then empirically determine efficiency. Specifically for BPA there has been a studies on Dracaena, Rumex.

Well, if it any consolation, it is no different already in academia. It used to be that the pre-meds were the worst offenders but I feel it getting more prevalent (or I am just getting older....). Pretty much sounds like PhD programs. Including the hair bit. One thing that is often overlooked is motivation. If people are not interested in a given topic they may get passing or even good grades, but they will never excel in what they do. People switching degrees are not solely doing it because it is hard. It is mostly because they are not interested enough to actually make a serious effort.

You could have looked it up, but I stated it was a study published by the University (or rather, the Center on Education and the Workforce) based on the American Community Survey. A study on a single cohort would not have made sense. Did you actually look at unemployment numbers (you know, critical thinking and all?). Based on that I challenge the 3 points that you made in the post. First, what is an over saturated BA? Looking at various data it appears that everyone should just go and get a business or nursing major. Also note that if everyone takes STEM, by definition STEM would be over saturated. The 3rd point has limited veracity as uni administration likes to sell the career aspect. You will note that most (especially younger) professors are unlikely to sell you that line. And, as others have noted, I reject the idea that colleges should exclusively cater to career advancement vs personal growth especially on the bachelor level. Rather acquisition of personal and transferable skills are the key issue. And, as I mentioned, within STEM unemployment varies a lot with a number of non-STEMs being close or better than some STEM disciplines. If you really think that, I think you should broaden up your education. A degree in history teaches you to contextualize events and evaluate sources for example. That is high-level critical thinking for extremely complex issues. As further evidence that STEM are not the only degrees providing transferable skills: Fresh college graduates unemployment rate/experienced college graduate (i.e. 30 y and older): Life/Physical science: 7.3/4.8 Engineering: 7.4/4.4 Humanities liberal arts: 9.0/6.3 So even using employment as criterion you are arguing massive changes based on a 2% average difference (with large differences in disciplines). To me that looks like a very narrow-minded view with comparatively little data to back arguments up. And again your initial example for comparison: Recreation: 5.2/4.5

And of course you will notice that a) all PhD with teaching positions are in STEM (so rendering your argument pretty invalid) and b) unless there is a senior full prf here, they won't get 6-figure salaries. Maybe we got an issue of perspective here (as the ones who have been around longer actually went through job searches...?). I do think that the high cost of education is the problem not the fact that education is broad. I would deplore a situation where people do not even have the chance to follow their passion, however slim their chances may be (hey just look at how many people try to get jobs as scientists). Also note that in a number of countries, secondary degrees are more heavily subsidized so that you actually do not have to pay tuition, which in my mind makes much more sense. Again, if you want a specialized training, a vocational degree and training on site is the way to go. Also if you think that if you get a STEM degree you automatically have a defined career stream, you are woefully wrong. It is true that STEM generally offers better job chances, but many degree holders end up in a non-STEM area (according the US Census Bureau the number was around 70% IIRC). So in that regard, your friend is right, some employers just want a college graduate. With a bachelor in biology or engineering you won't be able to stroll in a company and immediately be useful to them. You still have to have significant training in whatever you are supposed to do. As such, the precise degree often does not matter much, as long as you have got the right tools to apply yourself. Of course, if the job is in production a science degree will help. But if your track more about in marketing or management, it won't matter that much. Even looking at unemployment rates the situation is complex. Looking at 2013 numbers from a study published by the Georgetown University the unemployment for experienced college graduates in engineering is 4.4%. In social sciences it s 4.6 and recreation 4.5. Barely a difference. In fact life and physical sciences is at 4.8%! And yes, the disciplines matter. Electrical engineering is at 5.7%, chemistry at 5.6% and geology at 5.8. To reiterate, recreation (which is a single discipline) has 4.5. So it seems your friend actually made a fiscally sound decision. Finally, I do not understand the general line of argument here. Even if the job chances are lower, what is the reasoning not to offer the degree? You are not interested in it, so no one else should learn something that interests them? I think what college students need to realize is that once out of college, it is not going to be like elective coursework. With degree X you won't be in line for career X. Rather you have to take what you learned and market yourself, and as mentioned, most likely outside of your field.

Well, if one want to spread optimism one should also mention that tornadoes and earthquake have their positive sides. Including e.g. boom in construction jobs, for example. The general issue with the climate, however, is that the effects are happening on a global level. There may be localized advantages, but the question is the total effects. For example, warmer temperatures could open up Siberia for agriculture. But I would guess the soil quality is not particularly high so I am not sure whether it would be very useful (something that requires a bit more research). Benefits of milder winters vs heat waves would be another example. For certain aspects, rise of sea levels and ocean acidification I cannot see any kind of benefits. Higher CO2 levels could mean increased plant growth, but potentially also increased algae blooms. I do agree that a complete discussion would include as many aspects as possible. But discussing global climate from the only localized viewpoints would be rather limiting.

As others have noted, OP has the (unfortunately) common misconception that college is a type of vocational training. To be fair, Uni administrations like to push this line of thinking as tuition is important and for many it is an important fiscal decision. The overarching goal of unis, however, is to provide a space for individual development, exploring ones interest (whatever they are) and broaden ones horizon. Even in highly technical fields, degrees (especially at the Bachelor level) are nowhere close to a full technical training. The little bit of stuff you learn is just the basis that helps in understanding the complex bits later on. Rather, it is expected that students gather a selection of intellectual tools that will help them in their life, including (but not exclusive) to their jobs. This includes things like disassembling complex issues and questions, communication skills and a host of other skills. In addition to what others have said I will also emphasize that the environment outside of curricula is really important for individual development, especially in unis with a large amount of foreign students. For many this is the first time to actually get into contact (real contact, not second-hand anecdotal ones) with people from a large variety of backgrounds that actually share similar interests. Learning to communicate with people outside your own bubble (and thereby learning to see that people from other background are every bit as complex as you are) is incredibly important in the modern worlds in many areas. Edit: to answer OP's question: abso-friggin-lutely not.

Actually these questions are tricky as they are currently discussed with the perspective of hindsight and by applying today's viewpoints. However, if you are talking of the history it is relevant to add that the actors at that time had quite a different perspective. For example the issue of stopping Hitler. Considering what he has done it is easy to construct a narrative of a murderous madman that was ultimately brought down by the forces of good. But why did the allies waged war? Was it do stop the atrocities, or wasn't it rather that they were afraid of a German European supremacy (similar to Japanese ambitions in Asia). What if Hitler had not pursued an aggressive foreign policy but instead "just" decided to eliminate and murder parts of its population. Do you think the allies would have declared war? In other words, is the cause, that we perceive as just now, really the actual cause? If not, is the war justified or just justifiable? No, sorry, that is bordering on revisionism. The early expansions of Japan up until the mid-30s are pretty much the same as other imperialistic powers, which does include the allies. The British, Germans and Americans were all carving pieces of Asia and China. One major issue was that Japan was not seen as an equal power. Especially America's policies towards Japanese immigrants fueled Japanese resentments and thus an increase in nationalism and the desire to become a world player. Together with many other factors this ultimately strengthened militarism in the population and the cabinet. It is not that one single totalitarian (and delusional) ruler suddenly decided to wage war against everyone but rather a process that permeated whole layers of politics and the population. If hey had formed a cooperation with the British (the arguably most powerful player at that time), as was proposed (but never seriously pursued) by a number of politicians at that time, they could have taken part of China and avoided a war with Western powers. But really, their foreign policy was not significantly different to the Western powers. Again, reducing the whole historic context to it was solely the decision of totalitarian leaders does not even begin to touch on the issue. Especially as even in totalitarian systems it is usually leaders (plural) though some (including Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler) created a system where they were (mostly) surrounded by people loyal to them. In Japan the cabinet was quite a bit more complex and you would be hard-pressed to identify the singular entity who masterminded everything (not that I claim to be able to disentangle these complex political networks and factions, mind you). But what should always taken into account is whether we are talking about allies or axis, the context is very different from the countries we know today. Foreign policy was imperialistic and as such was prone to external conflicts, regardless of player. This is not to say that the actions were equivalent (that would also be a form of revisionism) but rather that the thought of military conquest is not born from the delusions of individual leaders, but, especially in Asia a continuation of the accepted foreign policy played out by the major powers. For discussing Europe one has to go back to at least WWI to provide proper context but this post is already too long and still does not even begin to cover ground.

Here you are contradicting yourself.

And probably neglect that even if we accept the narration as a historic fact, it would have happened almost 1000 years after the Pyramid of Giza was actually built.