EdEarl

1. I don't now what you want as evidence, but 2. Watch documentaries or read about bonobo culture.

According to some multiamory advocates, (gossip or science IDK) about 4% of the population live with more than two people as families. These people are not polygamists, rather both sexes have equal right to have multiple relationships with other people. Moreover, they are not swingers, who have two person marriages, but party outside the marriage. Multiamory advocates claim interpersonal communication among family members is crucial to having strong relationships, just as it is for any marriage. There are youtube videos and sites, for example multiamory.com.

In my opinion, consciousness can recollect things it has done in the past, sense affects of having done a thing, and decide to change its own behavior in the future to change those affects. This kind of behavior may not be sufficient for consciousness, but believe it is necessary.

Future technology may be able to modify those dates; regardless, I expect humanity to migrate to a Dyson swarm orbiting the Sun eventually.

I think the OP has hit the target, but missed the bulls eye. There are similarities in all cultures and the goals of most cultures are similar. After all, we are all human and share the same needs. One thing common to all societies and cultures is leadership and rulers. Leaders among small groups may be an informal position based on personal relationships with every member of the group. In this situation a leader may emerge who is smart and confident, or perhaps someone who possesses a controlling personality. Another thing common to all societies is members who need assistance, for example children, pregnant women, the ill, injured and infirm. Sometimes these people are sacrificed, for example in times of war or crises. However, loved ones will attempt to save family members, which means societies typically have social programs to help the needy. The Sioux nation, American Indians, cared for their needy with cultural rules. Men in the culture were valued for their ability to hunt, ability in war best was nonviolent counting coup), and generosity. A chief might have very little, because of giving to the needy. Most countries have social programs today, rather than depending on generosity; with large populations government social programs seem to work better than depending on generosity. There are many other things a modern government will do, and bureaucracies exist to manage them. Sooner or later, governments that fail to satisfy the needs of the people will fall, for example the Soviet Union. These changes can be violent, but do not need to be unless inhumane rulers force violence. Trade and enterprise are important, but other things are also important.

Grey Area: Would a prohibition of copying a personality include Alec Baldwin impersonating President Donald Trump on SNL, and similar impersonations? Furthermore, capturing a personality with a computer might be done by conventional programming or by letting a deep learning system study videos of the person. The former, programming can easily be copied and will not change without additional programming. On the other hand, copies made on deep learning systems would diverge as the AI interacted with its environment (AI life?). Why would the person whose -ality was copied in a learning system own the AI life after environmental changes; surely that AI has its own -ality.

Yes, perhaps worse, but executive orders, legislation, and amendments can change. An unfortunate trail of damage will follow, and some may be permanent, for example deaths. But, humanity can bounce back.

I am curious about the indictments, but suspect they will have little affect on the two or three most important issues. I believe nuclear war will be avoided one way or another. The constitution tells how. Climate change will be controlled; though, US Federal actions could reduce its effects. The indictments will not stop big money politics, change tax law, protect our health, etc. Pence follows Trump in succession order, which is not much change.

Most politicians that I remember (circa 1960-) stretch the truth and sometimes lied. However, Trump is unbelievable, and today stretching the truth is nearly a lost art that evolved to lies.

Space isn't empty, but for sake of this exercise do you mean everyone should assume no virtual particles, no vacuum energy, and no fields.

Probably better than most politicians in the US.

Yes

I think generalizations can be trouble, regardless of how much we need them. The most ethical way to interact is to treat each person as an individual who has various likes, dislikes and needs.

The answer to the thread title, "Is it ethical to view men and women as different?" is YES; although, there are many scenarios in which men and women are viewed as equals.

Upon review, I agree, but can no longer edit that post.

This article ignores the differences in the sexes. Men and women are not 99.5% different, but closer to 96% different, or about the same as between humans and chimpanzees. This difference is medically important, because men and women suffer from different conditions and ailments. For example: Alzheimer's isn't the only one, there are many such differences. Sex differences are in every cell of women (XX) and men (XY), not just in sexual organs. Personally, I love these differences; have been married for over 30 years. YES men and women are different, and it is necessary and ethically just to act differently with men and women. However, there are limits. Traditionally, women have been denied rights and justice. For example, women have been considered property of men, and some still are. That in my opinion is not ethically just, in general, but if a woman knowingly and willingly marries a man who treats his wife as property, then so be it. If I criticized, both would tell me to get lost--none of my business. In my opinion, there is no simple answer to the OP.

Even if intercity rocket transport becomes commonplace, the world will have stopped using petroleum for most energy. Hypertube seems poised to take over most airplane traffic because it is faster and comparably priced. Renewable energy generation will replace coal and petroleum, and transportation is rapidly changing to electric vehicles. The Earth will be much less abused by this scenario. Methane (CH4, propellant for SpaceX rockets) pollutes less per molecule than other petroleum distillates. Moreover, it is possible to make the methane from CO2 and H2O. Thus, it is possible to use rockets and burn renewable fuel.

I agree with you beecee. You are only five months older than I am, and I'd also like to see a Mars mission before kicking. Unfortunately, my bet is it will be pushed back at least 4 years. One thing Musk proposed was using the BFR to transport people around the Earth, with trips being under an hour almost anywhere. It seems unlikely he can reduce cost and improve safety enough, but if he can, airlines may be put out of business by hyperloop and rockets.

Mindfulness meditation has been found effective to help people avoid depression, among other things. It doesn't help stop depression; they recommend meditating when not depressed. IDK about anxiety, but may help. You should meditate when least anxious or not anxious if possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_points_of_the_elements_(data_page) gives melting temperatures of the elements. Graphite appears to be highest (near 4000C) with tungsten next.

I'd like to know why the word "time" is inadequate for "duration that elapsed." Perhaps he is trying to understand the nature of the "duration that elapsed," as some scientists are trying to relate time and entropy. However, the OP includes other things that are not directly related to the meaning of "duration that elapsed," and confound the question. That he doesn't trust Wikipedia is a little suspicious, but perhaps that is because Wikipedia has known errors and he is cautious. He is asking on scienceforums, perhaps he does trust science. I'd also like to know the nature of his mistrust for Wikipedia.

Everything begins means (to me anyway) it existed. Thus, my answer to, "has it really ever existed?" is YES obviously. You recognize that was contradictory, which means you answered your own question as I did, yes things do exist. Your question seems to imply you want to know some deeper knowledge about existence. Philosophers have pondered that question before, and René Descartes wrote, "Cogito ergo sum," Latin for, "I think therefore I am." That's the most complete answer that I know of. We do not know why or how we exist.

5lb each hand, and lift (curls 1000, above head 500) times, working towards 8lbs each. Doubt I'll increase weight much more. About half the reps every other day. I think what you mean by, "diet won't help much," is generally true. One must cut calories, not merely eat different foods, to loose weight. As I've eaten vegan, I've cut calories by avoiding fats, sugars, and dense protein, like meat, which are higher in calories per weight and volume than carbs. I usually have a salad for evening meal, and that seems to reduce my hunger. Maybe it is an illusion, but I am loosing weight. My doctor says it's not an illusion.

Oh, tell my Doctor, who recommended veganism for my health. Since starting a vegan diet, my blood pressure normalized (120/70ish), even though I'm over 300 lbs. Recently my diabetes meds have been too much, and expect to be diabetes free one day. If other people are motivated by animal suffering, fine, live and let live. I kill bugs in the house and have cats to eliminate mice. See: Forks over Knives and: What the Health on Netflix, Forks is also on youtube