Aardvark

It's called democracy. The Likud candidate for Prime Minister got more than 50% of the vote.

Starving China? Lets not be overdramatic here. As you have openly stated that you believe in the 'law of the jungle' between nations and that might is the only morality it would seem to depend on much more than whether you like the USA. Creating a balance of power between a democracy (however imperfect) and an aggressive, rapacious naton that considers might to be morality is quite clearly insane. Until and unless the Chinese government begins to act and think in a way more in touch with its civilisation and less like barbarians then China should certainly not be allowed any access to advanced weaponary.

This unfortunate attitude seems to be common amongst supporters and apologists for the Peoples Republic of China. A tragedy that the heirs to such a noble civilisation should has debased themselves to such a level of barbarity.

The strong performance of the British economy is because of the fundamental reforms made by the Conservatives, against strong Labour opposition. Those reforms are slowly being whittled away and the British economy is slowly lsoing its competitive edge. And you believe the official figures? Millions of people on 'invalidility benefit' are not counted as unemployed, the actual number of people 'economically inactive' is sky high.

And you actually believe that? It's fairly common knowledge that the Home Office and Treasury have had to massage research to 'demonstrate' the 'benefits' of mass immigration. And yet the great mass of immigrants never do return to their original homelands. Forcing down wages by importing large numbers of unskilled workers whilst several million of the indigenous population are economicaly inactive. That may make profits for some businesses but at the expense of the original population. With virtually unlimited immigration that is exactly what you will be getting. Several million unemployed and Britain needs to poach medical staff from third world countries. This strikes you as a good thing?

You do realise that is a contradiction in terms? A democratic multi nation state is, by definition, impossible.

I don't think we are looking at a strictly zero sum system here. Funds which might be available for cloning are not necessarily going to be coming out of the same pot as those used for habitat protection and reclaimation. If cloning were to simply be used to simply bulk out numbers of a diminished species then i would agree with you. But i can see circumstances when using old tissue samples could be a progressive way of increasing genetic diversity.

The possiblity of rapid ageing or auto immune problems is recognised for the cloned animal. However there would not appear to be any mechanism for those problems to be transferred to someone simply eating the cloned animal. Genetic problems wouldn't be transmitted via digestion.

Terrorism is generally a lot cheaper than conventional war. What might reduce terrorism is if the repressive regimes that have backed it were to be overthrown or forced to make radical reforms because of economic problems related to a decline in oil revenues.

The Ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Holy Roman Empire, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution. It seems that Europe has a track record worthy of any marathon runner. For Europe to have consistently been the cradle of great advances of civilisation over a period of more than 3000 years seems to require more of an explanation than 'luck'. Geographys the answer.

That would only be a good reason if it was an 'either, or' scenario. Cloning will be a useful tool in conjunture with habitat protection and reclaimation as well as playing some part in preserving and adding to biodiversity. Relic DNA samples will enable biologists to reintroduce individuals into depleted populations in order to enhance the species genetic diversity.

In a very broad sense, as humans originated in Africa all human achievements could be considered to be based on the actions of the African progenitors. However, it is clear that Europe did develop a highly distinctive and original culture and civilisation in the tens of thousands of years after the original settlers left Africa. Therefore it is fair to talk of European civilisation as an seperate cultural construct rather than a transplanted civilisation. True. I fail to see your point, much of European civilisation is based on rediscovered Ancient Greek writings. As the Ancient Greeks were Europeans this in no way reduces the European nature of European civilisation.

Not exactly. Europe developed its own distinctive culture and civilisation which can be seen as being completely distinct from its very ancient African progenitors. North America is still clearly a transplanted civilisation with its main roots in Europe. This isn't meant as any kind of america bashing, simply stating the obvious about the origin and nature of the civilisation that currently predominates in North America.

Until 1492 it was nowhere near as advanced as Europe. For the thousands of years that humans inhabitated the North America it remained relatively backward compared with other areas. The more recent advances in North America can be seen largely in the context of a branch of European civilisation.

It hasn't been proven that vitamin C can contain or alleviate cancer. Be careful of wild claims that may raise false hopes. However, there is a fair body of evidence that vitamin C can be helpful to the body when it is under stress and may provide some assistance when critically ill. Linus Pauling won a Nobel prize winner, did a lot of research into the benefical effects of Vitamin C, especialy into its role in cancer treatment and a respected institute continues the work of determining the relationship between micronutrients and good health and the treatment of disease. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/index.html One point to remember is that it is in effect impossible to overdose on Vitamin C. So even if it isn't effective you haven't lost anything by taking it. Personally, i top up my dose with a 1gr tablet whenever i am feeling unwell.

Could you give a quick run down of what he postulates? On a somewhat related note i recall a book by Iain M Banks in which computers had developed conciousness. When a computer was faced with destruction it could copy its programming to another computer thus preserving its life. On one occasion the computer facing destruction copied itself but then avoided destruction leaving it with a curious question about which one was the real 'it'.

Syntax, i know how you feel, i sometimes allow myself to get pissed off at what i see as peoples stupidity or refusal to face reason. But it's best not to allow yourself to be provoked into exchanging insults, however well deserved they may seem. I'm writing this as someone who has occasionally gone a bit over the top at what i've seen as peoples idiocy. For what it's worth, the idea that the US government deliberately orchestrated an attack on its own capital and New York seems highly unlikely, if only on grounds of risk/reward calculations. Even if we assume the US government is evil, cynical and aggressively imperialistic it still seems unlikely that it would make such a move. As such the balance of proof very much lies on those who would hold the US government culpable. So far i haven't seen anywhere near enough evidence to remotely approach the mark.

Who are you refering to? What makes you think that? After all why would anybody, even an evil 'you' want to do that?

A lot of the meat we can buy in shops has had water injected into it. This can be to add preservatives (such as sodium nitrates), but it also has the effect of bulking out the meat and making it seem better value for money than it really is.

I'm not disputing that she could be characterised as being brain dead and as such not 'alive' in a certain sense. But nevertheless she still has a certain degree of biological existence, a form of life, as such ending her life would be to kill her. As her brain is apparently already dead then it could be considered that it is only a matter of killing an 'empty shell', but i still think that 'killing' is an applicable word. Killing is not always wrong, but it does need to be justified.

There is a LOT of hypocrisy surrounding this case. People seem to be as excised by the soap opera nonsense involving the personalities of the ladies relatives as they are about her situation and there is a consistent diversion from the actual physical reality of the case. It seems a lot easier for people to slip into euphumisms about 'letting her die' or 'removing her tube' rather than face the facts that this is about killing or not killing her. I am not arguing that it is necessarily wrong to kill her. But i am angry at how people are tip toeing around the issue. This case is about the lady, not her husband, not her parents, not the politican, not money. If it is the best thing to kil her then let us hear that justification. If it is best to prolong her life then let us hear that justification. But no more with the soap opera. It is demeaning and sickening.