Pozessed

In your opinion, what is Americas biggest problem? I have been asking this question for a couple days. The answers are very diverse. I am curious on what everyone in this community may have to say. I realize the question is broad, but I appreciate any thoughts you may have to offer.

Plants and microbes are considered to have some ability to use memory. I am curious if this ability to retain and recollect information should be considered instinctual, and to what degree as they have no brain or nervous system. http://phys.org/news/2014-04-bacterial-immune-memory.html http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-mimosa-plants-memory-01695.html

A perfectly replicated mind and body would indicate different experiences to me. Whether I'd have a conscious control over both is hard to imagine, but not impossible. During mundane tasks I "zone out" and allow my body to function as I drift into thought. Maybe there would not be much difference in handling 2 conscious experiences at the same time.

Thank you both. That does help clear up some of my confusion...I think. I'll keep researching til I have a better understanding. These responses are more clear than what I was finding. And thank you for referencing Maxwell and photons, that should help me narrow my search for understanding. Is there anything I should be aware of that may add to my confusion or is easily misconceived, aside from physics itself?

Can someone explain to me in a simple way or lead me to an experiment (or both) that can help me comprehend how light travels? I am searching, but it appears to be a daunting search for someone who lacks an understanding of physics such as myself. I can understand that sound needs molecules to vibrate and repel frequencies in order to exist and travel, but how light exists and travels seems a bit more complex. I'm sorry for my ignorance, but I appreciate you all taking the time to respond.

Thank you both. I do know that the claims were rejected long ago. The author admitted this.

This is very interesting. If it was spam, it isn't now. Please read and discuss this book. I'm no mathematician or physicist but this book makes logically valid points. There now seems to be no monetary agenda linked to this document; only an attempt of enlightening people to other perspectives. "We hear sound and know that sound propagates through the air around us. We know this because science has made it clear to us. The evidence for this is when we pump out the air around us and then can not hear. How about light? We can still see without any air. The thought then arises that light travels through a different medium. Science assumed, therefore, that in a vacuum, space without air, a medium must be present by which light propagates. This medium, that is logically derived, is named aether by scientists. There must be an aether for how can the light otherwise propagate?" http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/wp-content/uploads/Unbelievable.pdf The book is hosted on http://www.paradox-paradigm.nlwhich seems to be a blog site created by the author of the book.

Maybe a better question would be, how can a altruism most effectively be achieved if directed to educate, motivate, maintain, and benefit a large social community.

It seems, if we had welfare for all, majorities may become lazy and unproductive. Also rather expensive.

Violence begets violence. It seems to me it would be better to promote peace and defend our home fronts. If we went on the offensive we are encouraging violence as well as decreasing some of our potential defenses.

Thoughts and opinions please. I think the coordinated groups involved in prohibition cause more violence and harm to people than the individuals who use drugs would. Yes drug users have a potential to harm people and themselves. Thus if drugs were not prohibited the hospitalization for harm to users would increase. More children would need to be fostered. More people would be hindered from drug abusers. At the same time, I think that the coordinated actions of law enforcement detain more innocent people than drug users would harm. I also think the cartels harm more people than drug abusers would. I think that with education of drug abuse and treating people as if they were responsible will be more effective than our current methods. I'm just speculating some thoughts on this. Please don't consider me an activist for drugs. I do advocate marijuana legalization, but as of yet I don't think all drugs should be legal.... People do tend to take things overboard.

I totally agree. I am sorry my opinions were presented in such a naive fashion. I only wished to show the perspective that the majority of people in America live above their most basic of needs. Everything above the most limited amount of necesseties was being considered a luxury. This seems obvious to me. I suspect that the majority of Americas economy is supported because of convenient and luxurious living as opposed to solely monetary gain. I suspect that if money had no merit there would still be trade for products and services in some means. There will always be an economy in any society which has goods and services needed. The society defines what is of value and the worth. Or at least I suspect they do. I think that the luxuries and conveniences would inflate as would wages to keep people enticed to work. To what extent Is what I am concerned with. This was all just hypothetcals. There are some studies done on insects and their potential to sustain societies nutritional needs though. The ones I found were conducted by the UN. I will digress with my own misinformed argument on eating insects. I was only trying to give an extreme means of food as opposed to ones that we take for granted at times. I am by no means against technology, luxury, education, or convenience. I was just trying to imply that those are the engine of our economy, not money. Therefore I beleive the motive to produce will still remain in our communaties. Anyways, what if we scale the idea down to a city? And specualate 67% of the city is above the age 16. Only residents 16 and over can register. 12 hour business days. There is a population of 15,000 inside the city and a population of 60,000 in a 30 mile radius. The establishments can maintain 35,000 people per day. Referring back to the OP the same rules apply except for making establishments locally available across the nation will be replaced with placing the establishments in this mock city. I am curious of the negative consequences that are most probable to occur if this idea were brought to fuitition. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf Page 84 - 96 in my pdf viewer were some listings of insects nutritional values. Further on in the report are industrialization costs and projections. Page 144 - 152 in my pdf viewer were some of their thoughts.

Your last comment should be "Americas population is productive due to luxurious needs not essential needs" and you'd have nailed my emphasis. Why do you find my comment to have no credibility? Would you like sources that claim insects are more nutritious? Maybe sources that cite which urban plants are best for eating and the nutrional values they retain? Considering I'm pointing out that Americans don't produce for monetary necessities as often as they produce for monetary luxuries, I think my arguments aren't only credible but relevent as well. What are the semantics in my argument? I was using my ideas of agriculture to point out that Americans aren't motivated to produce for monetary necessities as often as they produce for monetary luxuries. Some people were arguing that if people were given $60 per day America would lose production value due to lack of motivation. I disagreed and my views on agriculture and hunting were used to explain myself.

I never said it does not represent hunting, I said you were missing the point and tried elaborating on why. Apparently you either disagree with my opinion or you still don't understand it. A bow and arrow would do little good in an urbanized area for food, there are other means though. Insects are a nutritional source of food that 80% of the worlds population eat. Beetles and grasshoppers are even stated to be more nutritional than beef. There is also the idea of foraging plants in urban communaties such as flowers and weeds. I'm not sure how much sustenance they offer but coupled with insects, it could be a sustainable way of life in urban areas for people who wish to live that way.

You're both missing the point. The point is that there are cheaper means of obtaining sustenance than most urbanized individuals don't consider. The fact is, the way we choose to shelter, water, and feed ourselves in America are luxurious compared to what other people in impoverish nations have to do. Taking that into consideration it should be easy to realize that we don't have production in America because people want necessitates, it's because we want luxuries. As long as there is a demand for trades or goods there will be a supplier wanting to make a profit. It will be up to that supplier to drive competitive wages that entice production for that supplier to generate profit. The desire to have more will always be at the heart of the American economy.

This discussion can be taken whichever direction you and the community would like to direct it. I was simply curious of the economic outcome if an establishment like this were possibly in place.Considering it was completely hypothetical I didn't consider the costs or any demographic research. People are motivated by inherent wants not needs. People don't need to go to a grocery store and buy $300 worth of food per month on food when they could spend that $300 on a bow and arrows. That person would have food for a year instead of 1 month. They buy that food because they want to, not because they need to. I think the motivation for luxuries and personal goals will still be inherent.

I can't say how this program would be funded. I imagine if this program were put in place there would be provisions but I am not able to speculate what those provisions would be. I assume the spirit of this program would be to spread capital by funding some of many peoples basic needs.

Kudos to you my friend. Thank you for your thoughts.

What do you think would happen due to inflation?

I am curious of the economic outcome if America had a small happenstance in its economy. Please allow me to entertain your thoughts. Consider Americas economy to have establishments that will give all its registered citizens $60 cash once per day. Every day but holidays. These establishments are as abundant as fast food places and gas stations. All a person needs to do is show up and wait their turn in line to collect the money. The money does not come from government funds. The money being given is projected to reoccur for at least 10 years from multiple civilian contributions out of pure generosity. However, the money is taxed and 25% to 30% of every dollar given went towards the recipients taxes and required dues. Thus the $60 per day is only 70% to 75% of the persons total earnings. If the establishment described above were a functioning entity today, and it serviced the majority of Americans. What effects would it play on the economy? Please be a little detailed if you wouldn't mind.

Schedule 1 - heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote Schedule 2 - cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin Sourced from the DEA website. http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml In my opinion, some of the schedule 4 drugs are worse to abuse than marijuana.

As the title suggests, I would like to have a discussion about why marijuana should or should not be legal. If you have an opinion on the matter I would care to hear it. My opinion on the matter is that marijuana should be legal if regulated correctly. In America marijuana is considered to be worse than cocaine, meth-amphetamines, Oxycontin, and opiates. I believe marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, or nicotine. I also think it is safer to be buzzed on marijuana than alcohol. I believe the withdrawal from marijuana is less severe than alcohol or nicotine. Upon the fact that marijuana is proven to have medicinal purposes as well, I see no reason this drug should be considered worse than the drugs that it was compared to in my first paragraph. Hemp, which is another form of marijuana, has many desirable applications in industrial use and our ecosystem. It has been found to have invaluable fibers worth manufacturing. As well, hemp is claimed to remove much more co2 than large trees when comparing the rates of growth and the amounts of leaves available to induce carbon Therefore, hemp should be grown by the acre in America to help reduce the emissions they release each day as well as help the employment rate. With as many chemicals as we Americans release into our atmosphere each year, it should be mandatory for us all to grow plants, and I say at least one of those plants should be marijuana for the rate of which it cleans the air. Not that I think that's a practical idea, but one worth expressing. The economical freedoms marijuana legislation would have seem unmeasurable to me at the moment. I speculate that marijuana being cheaper would take billions of dollars out of untaxed markets and put that money into taxed currencies thus giving the government more money that it otherwise wouldn't have. Their would be less people being introduced to harder drugs by pushy drug dealers, and this would lead to even more currency leaving the untaxed market and entering the taxed market. People would have less money to spend on court and lawyer fees, which could then be put back into social capital instead of government capital. Social capital is what provides for private business which is proven to grow the American economy. My last and final thoughts on this rant, people should have a right to ingest whatever they want. Until they harm someone or act in a socially unacceptable manner due to their intoxicant, they should not be considered to have committed a crime. Drug abuse is the only crime in which a person is the victim and the perpetrator of the crime.

I have been in that predicament before. Granted not all of my posts were deemed as trash worthy, but a majority of my thoughts were. I was directed to the sites guidelines and I better understood how I was expected to communicate with that community. It depends on what the reasoning is. If my posts are considered trash because I don't follow specific stipulations, I am ultimately censoring myself. Again, moderating how people communicate is not the same as moderating what they are communicating about.

My idea is to have a trash thread much like this site. A place where peoples posts which seem irrelevant or offensive could go. I should have said instead of completely removing or deleting a post it should be moved to a trash thread. I think it would be important for this trash thread to be made public and allow for further posts to be made inside them to further peoples discussions.

With the properties in place as I have fathomed, how is censorship even relevant? I have not haltered communication in any way because I have devised methods for people who feel censored to continue their "censored" conversation. I have no reason to really define how I would address this issue when I have given methods on how to please even the most obnoxious outcries of censorship, yet I have. I'm sorry if my ideas aren't completely clear to you, but if I'm not giving you the answer you'd like and the only thing you have to offer is sarcasm to help construct the conversation then I don't see any point in continuing from this point.