Kylonicus

I'm pro abortion, because I think anything we can do to end human life is a good thing. I think we should not just kill infants, who did nothing wrong, but all forms of minorities, and people who we simply don't like. The elderly would be a good group to wipe out, or welfare recipients, because they are just "draining the nutritional intake" of our government. So welfare recipients should be gased. I think we should kill political opposition and anybody who is a different skin color or sex, except for sex slaves. We should kill all of our prisoners, because it's convenient to kill them, rather than trying to rehabilitate them. We should commit mass murder, because it's convienent. Maybe we should just erect big statues of Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and change the our motto from "Land of the free, home of the Brave", to "Land of the free, home of the Slave", or maybe we could inscribe on the statue of liberty, and in our court houses, "SLAVERY IS FREEDOM, DEATH IS LIFE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" That would really epitomize what were all about then! I'm not being serious, but I am trying to make a serious point. You start with abortion because it's convienent, but where do you draw the line? Lines always a tendency of being pushed farther and farther, and eventually it could get to the point of gassing the elderly, the infeebled, or the political scapegoat. It's happened before. It can happen again.

"Hi, do you happen to have pepper spray or mace? Oh, you don't, mind if I move closer then?"(isn't directly threatening, but it raises uncertainty at the possiblity of rape). "Hi, I'm just waiting on my girlfriend, she should be in her an hour, wanna make some fun to pass the time?" "Hey what's up (insert name here), oops I'm sorry, I thought you were my brother"

Dak I believe that would work. Unfortunately the Internet providers wouldn't like that too much, and any bypass network you setup they would simply ban from their fast connection speed agreement. Ultimately getting back to square one. Here is what I'm thinking/hoping, NOTE: I'm kind of ignorant on networking myself, but trying better than not. I'm thinking/hoping that websites could/would just compress all of their data, so that when you go to their website, everything is faster. Then on your recieving end, you automatically uncompress the data. That of course would probably also be banned by the evil monopolist. Another solution is this, You end up having lets say 5X connection ability, but your ISP only lets website Y have one X of connection speed to your computer. Well, you end up connecting to website Y, and it sends you information at one X, but it also connects you to website Z, A, B, C, which also get one X of connection speed with you. Then it transfers it's information to/from those websites to your computer, using the connection of each one of those brother/sister websites, allowing you to get a higher bandwith than allowed by your ISP. Also, if your looking at two websites at the same time, that are brother/sister websites, then they simply relay things along a larger chain of other brother/sister websites. If the websites were auto-compressed, then it would reduce the amount of information needed to be sent, and at the same time, decrease the amount of information needed to be held on the server, allowing brother/sister websites to keep their server information, and other server information without having to transfer information from the server that website X is on, to the server that website Y is on, freeing up even more bandwith. Anyways, those are just some of my ideas, I believe however, no matter what loopholes you used(including mine), they would find a way to close them off, because it reality it's simply all a matter of control. If you control the media you control what the people percieve, and what they think. If you control what people percieve and what they think, then ultimately you control the people, and the people's actions, which is directly converted into power. Too much power to be had. And you don't actually think the corpoRAT overlords would give up an opportunity to acquire power, do you? Especially when it's at the expense of other people.

I was wondering what everybody's opinion is/was of Peak Oil. What they thought would happen, if they think it's real, what they think the implications will be, when they think it will be ect...

Social security is what leads to having fewer children, not just an abudance of food. People want lots of kids for their old age, so that their kids will take care of them. If you give people social security, then they don't need kids for their old age. Children become a luxury, not a necessity. But increasing the food supply won't change that, that much. It would increase the population per input of food more than it would decrease the number of children.

We could use genetic engineering, and we could use fermentors if our digestive systems were inadequate. The reason I'm asking about would this method work, is at the moment, I do not have means of easily controllable genetic modification at my disposal, and so my means are limited. Not that I plan on doing this anytime soon(there are a few other things I have to get out of the way, before I can do this). But just in case a new great depression comes, this would come in handy in alleviating starvation in my home country(while perhaps giving me a slightly raised social status in the process, probably not(because politicians will always claim credit) but it's something to hope for). I believe strongly in the dire consquences of Peak Oil, and although it may be possible for us to change/adapt, I am not sure if the political will, will be there in time in order to mitigate a disaster.

Personally I think we should get rid of Indian reservations... Just as soon as we get the hell off their land(the entirity(however that's spelled) of North America minus Greenland), put every resource we plundered from their land back in the ground, and pay them in women and children for all the lives we took from them via warfare and the spread of deadly illness. Oh, and don't forget, rebuild the environment that we so ignorantly polluted with all of our toxic waste, we'de have to make that sustainable again in order for their lifestyle to revert to the way it was. I'm sure they'd be more than happy for that arrangment. BTW, I have no Indian blood in me.

Then couldn't we use fermentors(thus not applying the bacteria to everything) and then give people supplements in the nutrients that are broken down by the cellulase enzyme complex?

Then what if we used these forms of bacteria in fermentors? Giant fermentors where we would ferment cellulose containing products, then kill the bacteria, and then provide the populace with nourishment from the fermentors. The food they would eat then, might lack certain nutrients. However, these nutrients could be supplemented at a reduced cost, therefore reaching a larger number of people. A solution is better than no solution at all.

I had an idea for how to make cellulose digesting bacteria which could possibly be used in the third world in order to create a limitless(virtually) food supply. The idea was to grow a huge quantity of cow intestinal bacteria which possesses the cellulase enzyme complex, and grow a huge quantity of human intestinal bacteria, and keep them seperate. Then take some of the cow intestinal bacteria, kill it, then mix human intestinal bacteria in with the dead cow intestinal bacteria and add cellulose containing products(wood chips, grass ect...). What I'm thinking is that the bacteria will collect DNA from the cow intestinal bacteria, and by chance some of that DNA will contain the cellulase enzyme complex. Then when it's expressed by 1 or more human intestinal bacteria, because it will be able to digest the cellulose and therefore have a greater food supply, it would have an evolutionary advantage, causing that bacteria to increase in numbers. Then the bacteria would be put into a sort of nuturing glass vial incubator, and bacteria would be extracted from that and injected into a clean petri dish. The bacteria would then be killed, and more of the original human intestinal bacteria be put inside with environmental conditions favorable to producing cellulase. The human intestinal bacteria would collect some of the modified human intestinal bacteria DNA and would thus get cellulase enzyme complex, and due to the evolutionary advantage it would have, would increase it's proliferation vs the others. This bacteria would then be grown in a glass vial incubator type environment, where massive amounts would proliferate, and then some would be extracted and injected back into a petri dish, where it would be killed, and original human intestinal bacteria would be put in there, repeating the process over again. The reason this process would occur over and over and over again, is to increase genetic purity of the human intestinal bacteria, in order to minimize possible rejection by the immune system. Once developed this could easily be distributed throughout the third world, because anyone who carried the cellulose digesting bacteria, after they had produced quite a bit of it, could share it with others. What do you think?

Well, here is an idea I had(which I'm not the only one to have this idea, I checked, however it isn't being implemented to my knowledge) for solving most world hunger. I was thinking about how there is non-toxic grass, trees, and huge quantities of other foliage which we can't eat due to the fact that they are made up of cellulose. So I was thinking that we could genetically modify intestinal bacteria to produce cellulase, allowing people to convert grass, and other non-toxic foliage into a food supply. I even came up with a method of doing so(this hasn't been implemented/tried it, but hypothetically it should work). I'll post this in another thread. Anyways, if we had cellulose digesting intestinal bacteria, we would have a virtually infinite supply of food, and it would be easier for us to grow crops, because all we would have to do is grow grass, and we'de have food. The only downside is, although it increases the food supply to an extremely great degree, it wouldn't effect other vital resources, such as living space, water, mineral resources for economic development, ect... So we'de still have the problem of too many people vs the resources.

However evil you may think my idea is, it's far more evil to let people suffer to that extent. And they WOULD live a full life, the people alive would live a happy and full life. This would simply prevent unsustainable growth. I agree with you on the Pill, we need to make sure every woman who wants the pill can get it. I know it may seem evil, but honestly, is it better to have them all starving and living unsustainably? Is it worse than them all fighting amongst each other for scraps of land, or starving to death? When you look at crisis don't just think what we need to do and what we can do to make the optimal situation, think what we WILL do. If the world won't expend the resources to solve this problem, then should it remain unsolved, with people living in a living hell? Or should it be solved, in a humane, but less than ideal manner? OH BTW, if I couldn't support myself, and I was one of those people who shared popular views and therefore could get laid, I would want contraceptive. It would be the only responsible thing to do. To have kids and not be able to take care of them is irresponsible, regardless of whether you were/are born into a bad situation, to raise a child to inherit that bad situation is irresponsible. That's one of the reason's I'm working hard to acquire wealth, so that when I have a child, that child will inherit everything he/she needs. That way I can make sure my child has all the advantages, has all the right nutrition, the best education, the best business and class opportunities, and will never have to worry about his/her future. I'll probably be in my 30-40s before I get married.

Food isn't the only factor in population growth, I agree. However, people cannot have more children without food. If they don't have that much food, and then we send them food, we are enabling them to reproduce.

Also, this wouldn't be genocide. Any people who could sustain themselves, could have offspring. And it wouldn't be genocide in the respect of stopping them from having kids, because, if they didn't have any food, they'd all die, and then they couldn't have kids either.

Which is more ethical, providing people in third worlds contraceptive food so that there population isn't too large for their environment/infrastructure to support. Or feeding them a few scraps here and there, watching their population grow, and seeing them all live in absolute poverty and misery? If we gave them contraceptive food, there wouldn't be too many people vs. the environment, thus not only would it be better for the people(because everyone could then have a higher quality of life, less starvation, fewer people ratio to foreign aid, more opportunity as natural resources are shared amongst fewer people) but it would also protect the environment. If there aren't millions upon millions of people starving to death, if people aren't forced to destroy the environment, they are less inclind. If there were enough grazing land for cattle, so that everyone could eat meat, then people wouldn't need to clear more land. Furthermore, they wouldn't have to hunt monkeys(which is where we got HIV), and eat unsafe foods that may or may not contain horrible viruses/parasites/bacteria/diseases that would ravage the world. Ultimately it's more humane to the people recieving the food, the environment, and to the rest of the world.

This doesn't seem far fetched at all. The Islamic terrorist are starting to realize that the best kind of Jihad isn't a suicide bomber, but a slow parasitic criminal war. Instead of murdering us directly, the Jihadist are getting into criminal operations which are both safer, and extremely lucrative. It's hitting two birds with one stone for them. They get rich, and they screw westerners. However, because they are getting into criminal operations, they are in direct competition with the criminals who own U.S turf. So they are essentially costing U.S druglords/criminals cash. So why wouldn't the government and the local criminals be working together? It's better to be screwed by family than by a neighbor.

I was thinking about world hunger, and humanitarian relief, and how the more food aid we give, the greater the problem in the third world rises, and thus requires more food aid from us. So I was thinking, why not simply genetically modify food that is for foreign aid to contain a contraceptive? If we did this, then any population that's primary livelihood came from foreign aid, within a generation or two, would die out. Then we would no longer need to send them foreign aid. And if they ever became self-sufficient, and could produce their own food, then they would be able to reproduce, so long as neither they, nor their partner were consuming the GM food. So if they do become sustainable, then they can have kids, if they don't, they shouldn't have kids, because those children would simply be born into a life of starvation. What do you think?

If we underwent to genetic alterations, we could change into a different species. If a genetic caste system gets put in place(which would never happen while the U.S or Europe had a significant amount of power, but the U.S and Europe are declining due to militaristic arrogance, reckless spending, overextension, socialist policies, ludditism, Peak Oil, and globalization) then it may not be very long before we have two different species. If there is one group of people who are engineered to be perfect, and ontop of that have non-human or artificial genes that give them significant advantages, then it may not take long at all to create a new species. The downside of course is, if your not part of the new geneticly modified class, then that could be a problem. Most likely(unfortunately) it's going to be dictators/politicians, and the super rich, whose offspring will be blest with this technology.

Here is a simple way of promoting science, Show that with science, you can acquire POWER. That's one of the things I find so attractive(irresistable) about science. Only through science, can one man have so much power, without the constant nuisance, and annoyance of others. More shows with mad scientist taking over. More shows with the scientist having the power, or superheroes being scientist, and using their scientific knowledge to get themselves out of problems, when their technology fails. It would be like Macguiver, except the devices built would be much, much cooler. Muhahahahahahhahahahaahhahahahaha People emulate power. That's why the whole "bad boy" image is considered hot. Even though when they show bad boys beating up other people, the bad boys really don't have that much more power then others(in real life other people could simply shoot the bad boy), the fact that the bad boy is expressing the power that he has, and the fact you can see him dominating others, and having power, that's very attractive to people. That's why terrorist and other jerks of the like can draw followers, because they have power, they make a difference(even though it's an evil difference, and any numbskull can do what they are doing). I remember a sociology study done, where they interviewed former POW soldiers of world war two, who were trapped in German POW camps. The prisoners said that they would frequently break in to the Nazi offices(or armory or supply whatever), and steal Nazi uniforms, and then wear them. Now, the soldiers didn't use them to break out, and when it was seen that they had worn a Nazi uniform, they would be severely punished. The interviewer asked, "Why did you wear the uniform, if it didn't help you any, and you were beaten for it?", the answer was, that the soldiers just liked wearing the uniform. The reason the soldier wore the uniform was that he recognized that the Nazi guards had all the power over him, and although he wasn't willing to compromise his values and fight for them, he desperately on a subconcious level wanted to be them, as well as emulate them, even though he and many other soldiers, despised and hated the Nazis. As long as scientist are shown to be weak, and powerless, and aloof nerds with no real say in society, they will always be uncool. When you show scientist having power, making huge sums of money, influencing the heads of state, controlling how things are done, or wiping out enemy cities and getting revenge on those who ridiculed them, then you will most likely have an increase in the number of people who want to be scientist. That's why nerds started becoming attractive(and are becoming more so) attractive as time goes on. The person with the most wealth(and thus to some degree percieved power), is Bill Gates. He is a MEGA NERD, kinda like me, and because the fact that he's both A) powerful, and B) a mega nerd, and so many other nerds(like Paul Allen) are really rich/powerful/elite, it has made nerds more popular and more sexually attractive to women, due to the association of power. That's why height is considered attractive, because on an instinctive level, height represents power. Our evolutionary software hasn't caught up to the times, and before the invention of the gun(and even a long term afterwords), height was a determining factor in battle, in social status, and in acquiring power. Height was also attractive hundreds of thousands of years ago, as the more advanced of our ancestors started getting taller and taller, thus associating height, with the level of advancedness. The scary part is now, the most powerful person in the United States, is George W. Bush, and subconciously, many people may emmulate him(ACK!).

I can imagine all the abuses that will take place. Average High School Prick: Yah hotline, Like when I went to apply for the job, the manager, he like, said I wasn't qualified. I think he hates me, I think that's the reason he didn't employ me. Woman who broke up with boyfriend: My boyfriend he said this, and this, and this, and he hates me! You need to have him arrested! What might happen, is the general public would live in perpetual fear, and because they couldn't take everyone to jail(as that would overfill the jails), they could turn this into a hefty source of tax money. Every reported case of a "hate speech crime" would cost like 1000-2000 dollars in court, and it would be different for different income levels. The upper class would end up paying like 40,000 dollars. And the only people immune to this would be minorities and women, who, because they are oppressed, could NEVER discriminate . So ultimately this will turn out just to be another legal means of screwing over white guys, like always, even though, white guys are the present minority(which may be why we can be easily discriminated against).

Theoretically, it could be targeted at an enemy. The whole, mass destruction thing, is just one of it's applications. So it could be targeted on local areas(such as army barracks). Another application of this weapon(if done properly) would be to put the enemy to sleep, but not a permanent sleep. So you could in a sense, stun your enemy. All of your enemies would pass out, then you could take over the base with zero casualities on either side. However, the stunning effect would actually require alot more resources, and wouldn't be eligible to be turned into a WMD.

Perhaps, but that's classified as terrorism, and the political fallout would be bad for the United States. This wouldn't be classified as terrorism, but would rather be classified as a means of war, that would(I think), have less political reprocussions. Poisoning your enemies, is terrorism. Vaporizing your enemies is war. The reason why one is considered more vile then the other, is if major states use it, then it gives smaller states an excuse to use it against the stronger states. However, extremely powerful weapons are available to major states, whereas they are not available to smaller states. And so the major states, try to emphasize that more powerful weapons, are a less evil/despicable form of warfare then the means available to smaller states. Ultimately favoring the major states. But I don't mind, I'm part of a major state.

Thanks for all the advice, I bought a new battery, one that looks like it was made for experimental home applications. Hopefully I can make it work now. Thanks again for your advice-

The weapon works in essence by putting someone to sleep. Except the difference between just putting someone to sleep is, this is a permanent sleep. That's why I think it will be painless.

Well, not to seem racist, but I was actually hoping the United States would use it against the Middle East. My view is that, nuclear weapons have horrible reprocussions, as they spread both dust and radioactive fallout across the entire world. This weapon has no such negative reprocussions, the only thing eliminated is life. Thus, we can't really use nuclear weapons as a deterrent now days, because everyone knows that since the effects of nuclear weapons are global, then they know that countries like the United States would only use them last, last resort. Only if the international backlash would be less than what was being lost otherwise. So countries like Iran(which is filled with a huge number of American hating arab muslims) feel they can get away with(and they can) developing nuclear weapons, and don't have to worry about the U.S wiping them out. They know we don't have the will to fight another major war, and that we aren't desperate enough to drop a nuke. However, this weapon, which it's effects are easily controlled, massive, cost effective, and have no long term damaging effects on a global scale,and the death induced would be painless one, would be perfect for the U.S to use, and the U.S could get away with using a weapon like this. I think that would deter Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons/and or terrorizing other nation states, if they knew we had a WMD that we could drop that we were willing to drop. As long as they know they can get away with terrorism against us, and as long as they think that we won't drop any major weapons, or go into any major wars, they'll keep on doing what they are doing.