EdEarl

Interesting posts about beers, but is there a point about being vegetarian?

England's hypothesis now needs to be tested. If it is valid, then life should be common in the Universe. However, IMO it says very little about the probability of technological cultures occurring.

Actually, I think the possibility of running out of food is remote, even though traditional farms may be shut down because they use vast amounts of water. Israel desalinizes vast quantities of water for both public and agrarian use. In Minnesota, a 1 acre farm using greenhouses produces a million pounds of food a year. The reason people starve is not that food does not exist, but distribution of food is not effective because it is an economic resource. The challenges faced by humanity are primarily those of establishing a culture that solves problems, instead of endlessly debating.

IIRC once you stop eating meat and animal produces (cheese, milk, eggs, etc) for two weeks, the bacteria in you stomach have changed and help to give you the benefits of a vegan diet. You can then eat meat once a week or less and maintain the benefits. Someone will probably challenge this statement, but it is the advice I give based on my experience and reading. If you intend to become vegan, slowly withdraw meat and animal products from your diet, even if it takes several years to get to once a week or less. Don't give up.

It is difficult. I made the switch from to mostly vegan (I'm not perfect) about three years ago for health reasons. I took blood pressure meds for many years, but no longer and my BP was 120/76 today even though I am overweight and old enough for a 130/90 to be OK. Occasionally, my BP is low enough that I need to consume salt to make it higher. This BP is an indication my blood circulation has significantly cleared of plaque, which caused me to have a heart attack in 2000. People who read this will have doubts it would affect them in the same way, and even if the believe it would, they are unlikely to alter their diet.

The source of B12 is not meat; although, meat contains lots of B12. Economics, ethics, and health are the three reasons people will switch from eating meat to become vegetarian or vegan, IMO. And, none of these are likely to compel masses to change. People develop preferences for foods in their diet, and change is difficult as to stop smoking or drugs.

Thirdly, no and fourthly no. Speculation no. Study magnetism at KhanAcademy.org.

Compared to the 14,000,000 MT petroleum used per day, this production is small. But, it is significant, especially if it competes well enough to displace some petroleum in the market. I hope they are exceptionally successful.

The size of an asteroid or comet makes a big difference in what you must do. The largest thing ever to hit the Earth was very large, maybe the size of Mars, and it made the moon in the aftermath. The smallest things are subatomic particles. One might be so big-fast there is nothing we can do. Most things that hit the Earth don't affect anyone. At this time there are some things we can affect favorably. In the future, we should be able to deflect larger objects and see them further away; thus, we should expand our capability. But, there are some catastrophes that we cannot avoid; for them we need a colony elsewhere.

Thanks, I changed it. Today I think it is more like the futile crescent than futile crescent.

I'd like to add that the growth of intelligent life with the opportunity and ability to develop technology appears to be uncommon. Life on Earth has existed for about 4GY, yet technology occurred after a mass extinction that ended the dinosaurs about 70MY. Thus, the rate of evolution does not a limiting factor. There were creatures as smart as those 70MY ago during much of the 4GY existence of life on Earth, and opportunity for much smarter to occur. It seems some precipitous events must converge to facilitate technology advancement. Man survived perhaps100K years with sufficient intelligence to develop technology before it farming and metal working occurred thousands of years ago. The opportunity to develop farming also existed. Why, then, did man develop farming at the time it occurred? It does not appear to be that man wanted an easier way of life, and did it because he is lazy. It seems more likely that fate forced man to develop farming. In fact, man seems to have a natural wander lust that drives him to explore, rather tan a drive to settle in one place and work hard to make land productive. We may never know why man developed farming. We do know that farming in the furtile crescent was particularly good compared to other places, such as Paupa New Guinea. Moreover, the better farming created opportunities for some people to develop advanced technologies. This is evidence that precipitous events played an important role in technology development. Whether the Earth is particularly well suited for providing those opportunities compared to exoplanets, we may never know. But, I think the opportunities Man has had are quite rare in the Galaxy.

As I understand, even going to Mars is a challenge for people, because of radiation. Moving some of our bodies to another star is ATM almost unimaginable. The challenges are formidable, but can probably be overcome. However, good reasons for moving a civilization to another star are limited. A good one is to insure survivability of humanity. That someone would look forward to exploring the universe is incredible, because whoever leaves Earth will not, with any technology we know about today, arrive at another star an be able to explore; only their progeny. Marshal T. Savage described a possible settling of the Galaxy, in The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps. However, his processes for building floating cities to further populate the world has not occurred, much less steps toward colonizing the galaxy. One big reason, is that population growth has slowed. Hans Rosling's TED Talk explains that population growth will stall and probably become static; it is no longer exponential. Thus, one valid question is, "Why would we expect the universe to be filled with biological intelligent life forms." Finally, the most likely intelligence to populate the galaxy will be robot replicators, because they can be made immune from the effects of radiation without tons of shielding. Moreover, they can "live" long enough to visit another star. On the other hand, what rational purpose is there for having trillions and trillions of life forms inhabiting the universe? Our best guess is that entropy will continue to increase and the Universe will cool to near absolute zero as time approaches infinity. Ultimately, there is no where for people to go. The smart thing to do would be to use robots to extend conditions in your local cluster of galaxies to assure you and neighboring intelligent life forms can survive as long as possible. Galaxy forming would adjust the creation of stars to an optimal rate, and probably slow or stop the formation of large stars. Although, the energy consumption to achieve that goal might not be worthwhile.

The article did not specify what about processed meats caused them to be bad. As I read the article, they tested processed meat, but did not exclude the possibility that other meats and meat products are also bad for a person. The article quoted below suggests that all meats may not be as good for people as vegetables. Unfortunately, it too is vague and can be interpreted several ways.

I don't rant, but provide info (mostly) from peer reviewed papers. And, I'm not saying all meat is bad per se, rather that vegetables provide better nutrition (currently my opinion), except for B12 that comes from bacteria. Although, meat and meat products contain copious amounts of B12; whereas, vegies do not.

Why does some processed meat have reduced cholesterol?

Will Leone become a lion of Mars geography? His explanation is plausible. On the other hand, Curiosity rover has found evidence of water. Will future rovers prove Leone right or wrong?

They are looking for funding to start a company. Their video is interesting. Someone draws 3D shapes free hand instead of the drawing head being computer controlled. If they aren't too expensive, I'd like to play with one, but really do not have the artistic skill to afford one if they are expensive. Kids would go crazy with one, except the tip might burn them.

If prayer could put a man on the moon without a rocket and keep him safe, I'd accept it as being a rational process. Otherwise, it is an irrational expression of hope that something will help. I'd like to believe that people in power know the difference between rational and irrational. Unfortunately, this supreme court decision is not comforting. If someone wants to pray silently, or aloud in a group of like minded people; so be it. Just don't involve me or anyone who does not want it.

B12 is available in supplement. Just supporting my argument for vegan being more healthful. It's not about what we can do, it's about what is better. For example, we can destroy life on earth is several ways, but it is better if we don't.

The bacteria in our intestines become specialized for processing meat vs vegetables if our is meaty vs vegan. I think scientists are just learning about those differences.

Sensei, I worked on a computer network, now HP, formerly Tandem, called NonStop, because it was designed to run nonstop for years, while pieces of both software and hardware were replaced. Thus, the NY Stock Exchange ran for more than a decade without ever stopping. During that time all the hardware and software, both system and application software was upgraded. Your objection about shutting down to reload or repair is only applicable to computers but not to networks. The brain is a network; thus, I automatically assume that an AI emulating the brain will also be a network. Consequently, it will not need to be shut down. Our brain is hardware and our mind is software. We are able to improve our algorithms without getting confused, it's called learning. Thus, I believe AI will eventually be written to do the same. In fact, we upgrade applications all the time without shutting down the computer running them. At most, it is necessary to stop a running application and restart it. However, it is possible to run two different versions of the same program in two different windows. The most common situation is when one develops software and happens to be running a production version of a program while debugging a newer version.

Our trying to keep control of AI (slaves) smarter than we are might drive them to revolt violently. A sentient should have rights as a person under the law; after all, corporations have rights. And, I'd argue that corporations aren't intelligent or sentient.

If we have not heard from ET because AI is a threat to biological life forms, then why have we not heard from AI Moreover, why is it that an alien AI has not invaded Earth and destroyed us? I realize that a super AI would have the capability to destroy us, but it seems as likely we would threaten them as animals threaten us. Once a nuclear powered replicator gets into space, it should be able to find all the resources it needs to survive, thrive, and be safe. Thus, what reason would they have to destroy us?

I agree with Pozessed and Davidivad, MJ should be controlled more like alcohol. Moreover, I believe that putting drug addicts in jail and prison is insane, it creates a criminal population of people who need to be treated as alcoholics are, by medical intervention. Moreover, making drugs illegal has created an illegal super business that cannot be controlled, as Al Capone and his generation of illegal businessmen could not be controlled. The only way to disband those businesses is to make them unprofitable; in other words, stop making any drug illegal. I have suffered from chronic pain for years, and had a prescription for a narcotic, but it didn't help my pain and I didn't take the med. They made me sick to my stomach. On the other hand, some people crave narcotics as if they were candy; their bodies are made differently than mine. As far as I can tell, a person who craves a drug will get it, illegally if necessary. A person who does not, may experiment with a drug, but will not will not take it on a continuing basis, even if the drug is free. Thus, making drugs illegal has little effect on consumption. The idea that a person becomes addicted and cannot stop taking a drug is a fallacy. Taking my prescription narcotic, as prescribed, did make me addicted. However, I stopped taking it and let the addiction wear off, because I did not like the drug, and it didn't help my pain. I suffered for many years, and tried time and time again to get relief by taking the narcotic, and each time quit taking it because it did not help the pain and I didn't like the effect of the drug. Eventually I quit trying to get pain relief from the prescription med. Ultimately, I found an alternative to meds that alleviated the pain.