CharonY

Before one should even consider that one should actually have some data on the travelers. For example, there are numerous help organizations such as Doctors without Borders are active in that region. It should also be noted that not all areas are active battle zones (though the fronts are shifting). Policies based on gut feeling or incredulity have the tendency to bite one's butt at some point in the future. Another thing that I am suspecting is that by allowing travel, it is easier to track movement. It is much harder to see who is getting in, if people slip in through borders. It may be more inconvenient, but if they are radicals I doubt that this will be significant hindrance.

First of all, injecting bleach is not safe. Typical concentrations of hypchlorite used for disinfection are around 5-6%. Injecting about 1 ml in something human-sized is probably not lethal but will have serious toxic effects. For mice it is well in the lethal range. For your first set, the blood does not matter. Its actions of disinfection are independent of blood. And it is indeed routinely used to clean up blood spills. Note that pus is not bacterial in origin (although produced during inflammation). Also you are aware that S. aureus are also bacteria, right? If you are thinking in terms of resistances, they are against antibiotics. Bleac as well as ethanol work differently (though certain differences in the cell hull make certain species more resilient). For killing anything with bleach it is a matter of concentration. There is little connection whether they feed on blood or not. If you think to increase the concentration of bleach in the bloodstream so that it gets sterilized you are certainly killing the host. Also, the strong reaction you see is due to the actions of a group of proteins in the blood with hydrogen peroxide which is quite unrelated to the actions of hypchlorite in this context.

So if it is a two-photon effect the eye would respond as if it was of shorter wavelength (albeit at much lower efficiency). However with 852 this does not appear likely as it should be around the UV range? I wonder what else may be the reason, considering that multiple people were able to perceive it.

A neurotransmitter is what a neuron releases to create signal in the neurons it is connected to. This process is universal but there are many forms of neurotransmitters as well as specific receptors to which they bind. You have similar pathways for other nociception pathways. What I am suggesting is that you read up on the principles of the transfer of neuronal information as it will help you understand the process better than looking for one specific subset. That is only if you are interested in the biology of it, of course.

Like all bacteria: cell division. Sporulation is not the normal mode of replication, but rather a response to harsh environmental conditions. You may confuse them with fungi, who use spores to disseminate.

It seems to be a complicated matter. There is actually a hoarding disorder which seems to be a progression from OCD symptoms . In this case, patients feel severely distressed when throwing things away. There some potential associations with certain abnormal brain functions. Though there is large heterogeneity so that it requires much more research to figure out what is going on (see e.g. this for a review).

It seems that you may misunderstand the concept of Y-chromosomal Adam. It taps into the concept of most recent common ancestor of today's population and not that of modern humans. If you move back the timeline in human ancestry, the Y-chromsomal Adam will be shifted back, too. That being said, while the concept of interbreeding was controversial, I do not think that most scholars would have thought it to be ridiculous. For the longest time, there was simply no evidence. However, at least since 2002 there have been fossil findings that have been used to support the notion of interbreeding (see e.g. Trinkaus et al PNAS 2003 100:20). So the idea has been kicking around for a while before that.

On the diagnostic side there has been a massive amount of effort in identifying genes involved in diseases. However, from what I have seen, the success relative to the effort was fairly limited. Though in an absolute sense there have been definite advances. A major issue is that much of the data is based on association whereas the mechanism of the disease are still obscure. Gene therapy is not my field but currently a number of approaches being tested. To the best of my knowledge well over 1000 phase I trials have been conducted on a number of targets (with various cancer forms being the plurality) and less than hundred have been approved for Phase III. AFAIK worldwide there are less than five gene therapies approved in their respective countries (and none in the US, though I could be wrong). It is important to note that in many cases the precise functions of these therapies may not be known in detail. In the case of rAD-p53, which utilizes an adenovirus to target the p53 protein in cancer cells it is assumed that it will overexpress p53 which somehow leads to tumor repression. In addition some synergistic effects with natural killer cells. The logic behind it was that p53 is often mutated or had reduced expression in cancer cells. Thus, overexpressing it seemed to make it more vulnerable. Whether that is precisely how it works is a bit obscure, however. But again, I am not a specialist in this field.

I suggest to look at things in perspective. Compared to today European powers during the age of colonialism were in severe conflicts and many were very brittle. In fact, one reason that colonialism and territory expansion was ditched was because it was not profitable enough anymore. Past WWII we have seen unprecedented economic growth and wealth throughout (Western) Europe. Even looking at the 2009 economic crisis just highlights how much stronger Europe is now compared to what it used to be. The last time a similar economic crisis occurred was in the 20s and look at the consequences. Europe is now nowhere near facing revolution or war. The worst case scenario now is that Greece has to leave the EU. The worst scenario then was millions of deaths. If you think about it is complaining from a high level of comfort you can worry about demographics because you do not even need to think for a millisecond about the possibility of an European war, for example. If you compare to colonialism and post-colonialism you will find that basically all indicators have been massively improving, standard of living, economy, health, crime and so on. Many are at least partially technology-driven, but that also means that land grabs or similar ideas are useless in modern times. No, I think despite current economic issues Europe has never been in better shape to deal with it, especially when compared to how European nations used to be. I do agree that we still face issues of discrimination, it seems to be part of human nature. However, at least we acknowledge widely that is not a good thing. Whether we can live up to that ideal is up to each of us.

As ajb mentined, OP is vastly overestimating our knowledge on biological systems (on literally all levels). That being said, if we are not talking about X-man level superpowers but merely enhancements, then it moves from the realm of fantasy to science fiction. We do not have the knowledge to genetically improve abilities or even comprehensively model our existing physiology on the molecular level. Will it ever be possible to improve some aspects of human physiology? That is entirely unclear. We are essentially complex integrated systems. If we change certain aspects it may very well cause imbalances that create issues. Chances are that there are hard limits, but again, we do not know enough of anything to even begin thinking about it.

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?