Kylonicus

This is really disgusting, Why can't yall just to agree to disagree and to hate each other? Bettina obviously won't change her mind. I and the other anti-pedophiles won't change our minds. The pedophiles aren't gonna change their minds. And the pedophile supporters are probably going to stick by what they have said. The ped supporters have essentially said so much stuff saying how pedophilia is right, they couldn't admit their wrong even if they were confronted with a large amount of evidence, because that would be an extremely large amount of embarrassment. Everybody is in too deep to change positions now. Therefore, since nobody's mind is going to be changed by the arguements present here, then there is no point in having this debate. Speaking of debate, this should be moved to the debate section.

Have you tried Depo Provera? That will eliminate your sex drive.

I really think this topic should be locked. It's getting way to disturbing.

The U.S has emmigration laws, to keep people out, and some foreign countries(especially totaltarian regimes) make it extremely difficult for their people to move around, even within their own countries.

I was thinking that since blocking the T4 receptor blocks the capacity for HIV to infect cells, could we possibly use an antibody to block it, without inducing an immune response? I know that this has been done with the notch receptor without inducing an autoimmune response, therefore it may work with the T4 receptor. If it would work, then all we would have to do is purify the T4 receptor(which purification means exist for the notch receptor and therefore might apply for the T4 receptor) and conjugate it to a viral protein, then inject it into a HIV patient. The patient would then produce antibodies, which would in turn block the HIV indefinitely, allowing people to become immune to HIV. Then through means such as dialysis, the HIV count could be reduced to the point that it would not be sufficient to allow an individual to infect others. The main question/problem with this though, is would it cause an autoimmune response?

Actually, I think it's wonderful. In the short run it may be bad, but if HIV sets in in 2-3 months, it gives people less time to infect others before it becomes obvious that they have the disease. If the disease is resistant to most if not all medication, then it would kill it's host rather than let him/her live and kill others. When you think of the big picture, it's actually a very good thing in comparison to regular HIV.

No, I am currently a high school student, however my father is a business major. I would like to get into biomedical research actually, cure some diseases. I believe I already have found a treatment for cancer, through selective upregulation of upregulated genes in cancer, and selective downregulation of downregulated genes in cancer. This in turn induces selective toxicity in cancer cells because if you have too much of one protein that is vital for functioning, or too little, it can cause cell death. A good example of this is valproic acid, which is a GSK-3 beta inhibitor, which kills cancer cells that mutate along a certain path of various genes. Downregulation could probably be induced through the use of antibodies. I am sure however, that others have probably also come across this same idea, and are working on it currently. Oops, getting off topic

I have done a significant amount of research into neural regeneration, and hypothetically it can(and I will) be abused to increase one's intelligence. If you combined an antibody against NOGO-A, with melatonin, and progesterone, it should induce neurogenesis, while at the same time allowing neural integration of the neurons. I am not getting into the mechanics at this time, due to the fact it's a specialized field, most people really wouldn't want to waste their time with sifting through the technicalities, I will post how these three compounds induce adult neurogenesis, if it is requested. Would it be ethical to use neural regeneration to alter ones intelligence to lets say... for lack of a better measure an IQ of 195? Or to make yourself extremely creative in one area or another? Or to make yourself have a perfect personality so that you can drive yourself to be an executive and what not. Are there any ethical problems?

I was thinking that since many people live in poor and often corrupt countries, we could simply bribe the countries into giving us the intellectual resources. Many people in those countries can't possible benefit those countries due to the fact there are not enough jobs, and more likely than not, the people who go from their home countries, get jobs in a first world country, would be likely to want to send money back and help out their own home country. By doing this it would drastically increase the amount of money in the poorer countries, but due to the fact of decreased intellectual labor cost, it would increase the production of new technologies and what not in the richer country. Both countries benefit, like in other forms of trade, trading one resource for another. Money for brains.

We should simply genetically engineer our offspring. That would take care of the problem. Everybody's happy, except some people who have a moral objection.

There are many people in third, and second world countries who have tremendous intellectual, creative, emotional, and genetic potential. I believe that where they are waste their potential, hurting both them, and the whole world community. That is why I believe we should begin testing for the qualities which we would like in our civilization, and begin transporting(with some compensation to the home country of course) the individuals into an environment where their potential can be used. This already occurs to some extent with foreign exchange students, but I believe that if we were more proactive it would help both the country recieving the high potential individuals, and the home country from which they came. Like the Mexicans, they would get jobs here, develop their potential, make alot of money, and send alot of money home to their families. It would also increase the amount of cultural exchange, allowing global integration to occur faster, due to the fact that many of these highly intelligent, capable individuals would come here, and have to meet individuals of other cultures, forcing them to learn how to tolerate each other. Also, by doing this, many of these individuals(but probably not the majority) would go back to their home countries to become leaders, and in which case their perception of the world would be heavily influenced by the concepts of the host country that they had visited for their education. I believe this would benefit everyone, and I think we need to be aggressively proactive. The only problem I can see would be hostility among the native population of the host country(especially amongst intellectuals, which would be the ones suffering the greatest competition) against the incoming peoples, which could create a negative perception of the host country in the eyes of the selected immigrants. What do you think?

I think a good repellant would be to put on an artificial penis, that way if a guy wanted to rape a girl, when he saw the artificial penis, he would think she was a he, and be totally disgusted and pissed off. This wouldn't work if a whole bunch of people started doing it, but a prostetic penis would work if not a whole lot of people knew about it. Also, that would be a neat invention, the chomper, women insert it, and it has to be uninserted but anyone can have sex, when a guy tries to stick his penis in there, it cuts it off. The only way you would be able to deactivate, and cause it to deattach from the insides of a woman, would be to go home to her house, and use the deactivator, which requires a password and what not. I can see abuse of this happening all the time, a girl ask a guy she doesn't like to $@!# her, then he loses his penis. When the guy tries to prosecute, the girl claims he tried to rape her. But it would certainly make guys think twice about trying to rape women. I think I should market that. *Edit* I didn't read the first part of the post. when I said that.

Time travel is possible I think. According to Gunter Nimtz, the lead researcher on superluminal tunneling kept doing research on the faster than light phenomenon, and he, being a conservative in physics came the the conclusion time travel is possible, but the duration of which a particle goes back in time is so short, that it can't possibly be used for any practical purpose(i.e sending back those lotto numbers). Essentially it can't be used to violate casuality. Superluminal tunneling works off of the uncertanity principle which basically states that anything is possible, just not probable on the quantum level. At least that's what I think that paper of his said, my memory is sketchy. However, sending a particle back in time and a human back in time are two COMPLETELY different things, and furthermore, you would only be sent back like a billionth of a second, which in reality serves no purpose whatsoever. At least that's what I think that paper of his said.

BTW daisy, I get my research from other scientist who are specialist in the field, it's wasn't my original theory that autism was caused by a fault weirneckes area, that was a theory proposed by a neurologist working in the field. It's also been demonstrated by the effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation. The part about the parietal lobe regulating the brain, I also learned that somewhere else. I get most of my research from published scientist, I do draw conclusions but most of it comes from credible sources.

So long as the negative behavior isn't intentional(such as someone being extremely aggressive in business to make more money), much of that is generated by a lack of executive functioning, or an inability to adapt to societies demands(such as kids with ADHD in class rooms, being class clowns). If people have the proper executive functioning, then the rest of negative or violent behavior becomes a matter of choice, circumstance, or culture. However, it would be possible to neurologically alter someone so that the part of the brain which deals with delayed gratification is larger. This would make alot of people non violent, and if we increased the penalty for commiting criminal acts, people would probably not commit them nearly as often.

If you wanna make your children smarter, just manipulate EPIGENETICS and PRENATAL HORMONES. It's not genetic alterations but it's the next best thing. I have done alot of looking into this, and I believe anyone could easily manipulate someone to be super intelligent. Progesterone raises baby's IQ's by about 30, has drastically other positive side effects towards increasing academic ability and emotional stability. According to the study done with the children they were also 7 times more likely to enter a university. I believe another neurosteroid, melatonin, which has been shown in numerous clinical trials to be neurotrophic, and which it's mechanisms of inducing higher intelligence are partially known would drastically increase the intelligence of the people who used it. I don't think there would be any danger whatsoever in using melatonin for this purpose. If you wanted your child to be more ambitious or creative, you could increase the amount of L-Dopa floating around, although this might be dangerous. If you wanted the child to have better academic ability and to be an academic genius, you might give him/her an acetylcholine agonist, preferablly very, very small doses of huperzine serrata. If you wanted to increase the child's beauty if it's a girl, then you increase the level of prenatal testosterone. It is actually prenatal testosterone that is responsible for the feminizing effect. When aromatase is available(which it isn't in girls prenatally), or when estrogen is combined with testosterone then it produces a masculizing effect. However, since prenatal testosterone without aromatase leads to feminization, it would make women, even more womanly, and the traits would be blairingly obvious. By giving a child a high dose of nutrient or chemical it upregulates the used pathways that that nutrient or chemical uses, and the effects will effect it's offspring and it's offspring due to EPIGENETICS. Thus if you want to accelerate the use of the choline pathway, you simply increase the amount of prenatal choline. It's pretty bloody simple. Later on, when you wanted the child to be taller, you could apply HGH. As for minor cosmetic alterations, you can do that after the child has been born. You can easily dye your child's hair, if they want it, or use contact lense with a different eye color. And for the "genetic superiority" that you want, your child being genetically superior will easily be able to attract(and will probably not settle for something less) a very genetically advanced mate. BTW, if you try and do this on a mass scale because you think "It's what's best for humanity" all you will be doing is screwing the rest of us who want to do this for OUR children. The right wing fanatics will go nuts, and wouldn't dare let anything like this happen. Or, they would intentionally screw some babies up, in order to try and show how "unsafe" it is. In reality, it should be very safe, so long as you don't use mega doses of progesterone, or if you do, you make sure you use it in combination with high, high doses of melatonin, and small doses of DHEA. If you don't use DHEA, then the adrenal glands shouldn't develop, the pineal gland won't develop, the sexual organs won't develop, the child will be a midget, and a bunch of other bad stuff will probably happen. It's generally wise to stay away from mega doses of progesterone.

Which is more important, your skin or your brain? The brain is what makes you, you, and essentially, if it's severely damaged, your personality get's messed up. I think the best treatment for brain tumors would be Valproic acid. It has been shown to reduce and induce apptosis of cancer cells. It's cheap and it's relatively tolerable, and well documented, being a common treatment for bipolar. That's just my thought on the subject.

I am trying to observe electrons.

What we might do is make people take test, which they can't fake, which would determine characteristics which predispose people to pedophilia. This way, we could adjust people so that they are less likely to do that. What I mean by adjust is conditioning.

I would like to know how particle detectors work, if anyone could tell me, because I think there is a way to manipulate the uncertanity principle to produce energy, and I need a way to observe the particles so it changes their actions.

About cloning, south korea

Could atom smashers be used for energy? I was thinking, if you were to use an atom smasher to break apart lead, would that possibly release more energy, due to the neutrons and what not splitting off, then it would be possible through the use of bombardment with X-rays and high frequency lasers to cause the radioactive waste to decay producing energy. Basically, atom smashers could be used to produce some energy, and if the energy wasn't enough, the radioactive waste could be used as a power source, but using lasers or X-rays to accelerate the decay of the nuclear waste, as well as produce large sums of energy that it normally would have produced over it's lifetime. The only problem I can see with this scenario is A) The total energy produced by the procedure would either be less than the energy cost, or it would to costly financially. Or B) It would take a large sum of energy to extract the energy from the nuclear waste, and the engines which would collect the energy from the nuclear waste wouldn't have a high enough efficiency level to collect the power from it to make it cost effect energy wise. What do yall think?

The Garden Gnome, I would also like to build an atom smasher, and I have limited resources. I was thinking one could build one far cheaper, and perhaps even better than the large scale version using superconductive materials. If you were to use superconductive materials, then you could send all the energy needed to cause whatever particles your accelerating accelerate at only one location, and in those very few materials, versus building tons of small electromagnets which accelerate the particle a little bit more and a little bit more. Also, you might look into what I am trying to do, I would like to build an atom smasher in order to produce radioactive tritium, and energy. I was thinking that if I accelerated lead, then the lead would break into smaller atoms, and if I accelerated it fast enough into tritium, meanwhile it would release vast sums of energy. I believe if I were to have thermal engines available, I could produce the energy to power the device from the destroyed nuclei, and if not, I could use the tritium to produce the power necessary.

I think self-experimentation is good. If someone is willing to try to develop something, and they know it will work, but the regulation on human testing is too strict, this gives them a valuable tool to test and develop their treatments. Also, alot of patients self-experiment, and alot of times they know better than the doctors.

Ram Europa into Mars, and Nuke Mars, You do this and it would be massive enough to retain an atomosphere, and the iron oxide breaking down would produce a huge quantity of oxygen for breathing. So you've got breathable air, a HUGE ocean(Europa is like pure ice almost) and alot of sun. You could then just shoot a bunch of algae and other life forms and watch it grow on Mars, and then later some fish, and in like 50-100 years, you would have yourself a world worth living on(it would probably still be all ocean though)