Slashdot Mirror
Deleting Certain Gene Makes Mice Smarter
An anonymous reader writes "Deleting a certain gene in mice can make them smarter by unlocking a mysterious region of the brain considered to be relatively inflexible, scientists at Emory University School of Medicine have found. Mice with a disabled RGS14 gene are able to remember objects they'd explored and learn to navigate mazes better than regular mice, suggesting that RGS14's presence limits some forms of learning and memory."
I can haz turnkey upgrade for 50$?
Whats the odds that there are people quietly trying things like this on humans somewhere?
Yeah, let's make lab mice smarter! What could possibly go wrong?
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
To call an inability to forget "smart" is a display of misunderstanding what learning actually is. Forgetting comes in many flavours, and while intuitively believe some forgetting may be related to "making more room", extinction learning is a rather finely-tuned mechanism of filtering relevant input from irrelevant input. Making that filter wider is hardly smart.
When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
From TFA: "The lack of RGS14 doesn't seem to hurt the altered mice, but it is still possible that they have their brain functions changed in a way that researchers have not yet been able to spot. Besides being resistant to injury by seizure, certain types of CA2 neurons are lost in schizophrenia, and loss of another gene turned on primarily in the CA2 region leads to altered social behaviors, Hepler notes." More able to learn and remember, but possibly less able to function socially?
Unfortunately it's likely not. Evolution or God (your choice) rarely gives something for nothing. This gene is likely there for a reason. Disabling it will have some drawback, and it may not be an obvious connection.
I remember watching a show about genetics. They were talking about how humans have a genetic defect in a gene which governs the size of our jaw muscles. This defect means we bite with far less force than a chimp. But the show pointed out that a smaller jaw muscle, due to the physical attachments, allowed our skull to grow larger and with it our brain. Considering how well chimps are doing as compared to humans, I'd say the defect was actually a good thing.
you people are letting me down...
...that Pinky & The Brain was fiction.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I used to watch a documentary about this as a kid. Apparently this causes 50% of the mice to turn incredibly stupid, while the other 50% want to take over the world.
I couldn't decide how to mod this. I was leaning in favor of insightful, but to hell with it. I'm replying instead.
I wonder if this or similar genes could be responsible for "above average" intelligence in some people. It would seem to explain why the majority of people seem to maintain their seemingly low average. As I have contemplated what makes some people with above average intelligence different and how they can either tone it down or otherwise adjust comfortably into society, it occurs to me that this is just something that can't be "turned off" or "learned away." In many respects, it seems as uncontrollable as homosexuality. No one "decides" to be gay any more than anyone decides to be smart. (FWIW, I like women... I have contemplated going the other way and have concluded I just can't go that way and for quite similar reasons... nekkid women pictures have been giving me erections since I was at least four years old and I can't imagine it working any other way.)
Perhaps I am simply too contemplative, but that is something I simply cannot turn off except when I am sleeping. (and even then... is it really off?) By the age of 10, my contemplative nature led me to conclude there can be no God in the form it is currently being pushed on us and even if there were, I see to reason or purpose behind worshipping. (well, exposure to PBS and the clear existence of "childhood myths" such as santa claus and the easter bunny also helped in the process to be sure.)
But where does it all come from and why aren't other people like this? How is it other people are simply comfortable following without thinking about things and I am not? It would be interesting to know if this or similar genes are actually responsible. And like many homosexual people, I wouldn't care to change it even if I could -- this is who I am and I don't need to change me, I just want to understand me.
It may be reasonable to hypothesize that deleting the certain gene makes you smarter because it seems that with smart people, the more they know the less certain they become about what they know.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
And adding certain genes to humans makes them more.. mentally handicapped..
Flower for algernon anyone?
You do seem to be a good candidate for 'getting smarter'...
A smarter Brain? But still not smart enough to take over the world...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinky_and_the_Brain
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Actually, the immediate thought that occurred to me is that the gene is what disables photographic memory. The people that have it probably have a mangled version that doesn't do its job (isn't fully expressed). Since we have yet to find a common marker for the ability per se, we should try to find the people with the ability and check and compare theirs against the 'normal' version.
;-).
I personally don't have photographic memory although I am quite able to remember where I've heard or read something even after decades. Used to drive my fellow graduate students nuts (although my professors liked it since they had to never give chapter or page citations
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Maybe this could be used to create a new memory-improving drug. The effect would be temporary, but it's exactly what one might need before starting a pre-exam cram session.
One is a genius
The other's insane.
They're laboratory mice
Their genes have been spliced
They're dinky
They're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain.
As I have contemplated what makes some people with above average intelligence different and how they can either tone it down or otherwise adjust comfortably into society, it occurs to me that this is just something that can't be "turned off" or "learned away."
Now that's just plain wrong.
In my youth, I lacked the discretion I gained with age. Thus, in my younger days, I spoke in a manner far exceeding the accepted capacities of my age, causing me to be looked upon as odd, unlikeable, or "the weird one."
As the years passed, I learned to "tone things down," suppressing my abilities in day to day interactions. I spoke simpler, broke down things that others considered complex to something understandable, and overall integrated as a more "normal" person. Note that I continued to get 90-100%, but because I was such an easygoing and average/fun person, my peers considered my intellect to be just natural and accepted rather than something to ostracize me on. Some considered it to be advantageous because, hey, get that guy on the project and BAM! A+!
So y'know, toning things down isn't impossible. My completely anecdotal evidence counters your anecdotal evidence. It's a learned skill just like any social skills. The only folks that probably can't tone it down are those with autism. For those who actually have Asperger's instead of self diagnosed, it's doable but more difficult to do without outside support.
I don't really consider "toning it down" to actually be dumbing yourself down. Speaking in a manner that isn't a pretentious a-hole is like speaking another language. Sure I can talk to the Chinese guy in English and demand he understand what I say, but that's not exactly a stellar way to present yourself. Learning to speak their language shows greater prowess on my part and puts them at ease too.
I gotta say though. I've been at it for way too long. Talking all educated like to my profs makes me stumble all over my words. Unless I effect an English accent. For some weird reason if I put an English accent on, I become less stumbly and more smooth.
And enough with the "I'm so smart! I'm an atheist!" shtick. It's been feeling masturbatory for a while.
thats the gene responsible for creating sex drive. Without worrying about sex the mice can concentrate on solving mazes. The Seinfeld hypothesis is right(well for mice anyway, if it were right for humans I would be the smartest man on the planet :P)
Monstar L
Think about genetics as being the thing that determines your reason for being alive. It is not to be rational, not to be smart... understanding the world around you is helpful only in that it may help you make more things like yourself. Whether it be offspring or useful ideas, the point of your existence is to perpetuate your own genes and those like yours (you are 99.99% the same as me even though you don't know or care about me). Evolutionarily, having homosexuals in a family is like having grandmothers... its one extra person to help the family out who isn't adding to the family at the same time, so they can distribute thier energies towards those around them moreso than someone worried about their own children first. It's to the advantage of a group to have a few men and women who don't reproduce for that reason. Social groups only need so many thoughtful individuals... if everyone was like that though, it wouldn't work in a constant survival situation setting.
That's not to say we have the ideal proportion of thoughtful people for today's world or anything, just an explanation for why things are the way they are. You are either a child of god, pointless, or a vehicle for your genes. Choose which to believe.
We know how this plays out already! Anyone remember NamTar, the genetic experiment that grew from a dumb, small creature into a mad scientist bent on perfecting its DNA?
I wonder if this or similar genes could be responsible for "above average" intelligence in some people. It would seem to explain why the majority of people seem to maintain their seemingly low average.
Not quite sure what you mean by that - but the intelligence of the majority, as measured by IQ, has been consistently increasing for generations now, it is called the Flynn Effect.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"When scientists get caught in traps built by their lab mice, they know they went too far".
But on a more positive note, I think I smell cheese just around yonder corner...
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Evolution is causal. Just because a cause existed 50 million years ago, doesn't mean that it's there right now. I think that if we had the opportunity to *opt* for a larger (or more efficient) brain in exchange for higher energy consumption, most of us would do it. Humans have tamed the environment, and therefor we change our surroundings, rather than them changing us. We need to take the harness if we want to continue to improve ourselves, and the path of genetic modification seems the inevitable one.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
it only increases the ability to recognize objects and navigate mazes (visual memory), but hurts other brain activities (reflexes, creativity, thoughts). Navigating mazes isn't really a trait that mice evolved towards.
Surprising that noone noticed the reply titles "Re:Cool, it's like Intel Upgrade Service for a bra"
I'm sorry, but you come off as very elitist; "I don't fit into society, but I'm way above average and everybody else is too stupid (to understand me). That's reasoning in order to maintain a certain position you clearly dislike, but giving purpose to it by telling yourself you're "above average".
"Intellingence" is a very wide subject and is sensitive to interpretation: A bushman wouldn't be able to "do the intelligent things you consider intelligent", but you wouldn't survive long in his world. It's relative, but you victimize yourself and place yourself on top of other in a egocentrical "I must be better".
Oh, woo me, the intelligent creature who suffers and is "always on". All those other stupid fucks sleep well and go about their meaningless lifes...
I'm sorry, but that doesn't take "above average intelligence". And by all means, by the age of 10 you do not have a "need for a god" in a western midclass world where you're shielded from life, certain life events later who will make you cry you wished there was something or someone who is godlike. At 10, you lack certain insight and experience. I'm not telling you I believe in a god, but at that age you lack experience.
TV isn't life, get out, live a bit.
They're not around because they don't like hanging out by an isolated guy who feels superiour in his self-explaining of his isolation.
Don't mix intelligence, a sense of superiority with your sexual preferences and religion. You're not discussing on topic, you're just being an egocentric shortminded selfentitling dumbfuck.
I'm sure you feel you have all figured out already as well :)
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
How about we separate social abilities from intellectual capacity. Some people are smart, and since they don't notice that it makes them different, they become outsiders. Others are both smart and very perceptive, so they "modulate" their behavior according to who they're talking to. Yet others make a conscious decision that if someone else doesn't approve of the way they are, then that someone is at fault, and not them.
And to continue the theme: I'm an atheist, intelligent, knowledgeable, and a snappy dresser!
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Keep in mind that it relates to the people that take the test. If you opt to take an IQ test (not everyone that takes the test opted to, obviously, but many do), there's a higher chance that you've been exposed to the kind of environment/education that incentives critical thinking, and as teaching methods improve and learning resources increase, these people will continue to do better on these tests. We're not talking about the average intelligence of the human species.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Well, I'd say it remains to be seen if it's an upgrade or a downgrade. Forgetting stuff or needing more than one case to form a rule are there for a reason. If you met someone "upgraded" who upon seeing a yellow cat automatically forms the full connexion that all cats are yellow, and/or is unable to break that connexion afterwards, the thought would probably be less "upgraded" and more like "poor idiot".
The general evolution of the brain has been towards smarter. Something which only needed a gene to break to be an upgrade would have been selected instantly if it were indeed an upgrade, as genes break all the time.
And for that matter, if that gene is a downgrade, how did it get selected in the first place. Survival of the fittest is still the name of the game, and in this case we're not even talking outside colours or anything else blamable on sexual selection. So, really, how did a whole extra gene that causes a downgrade get there, if it's a downgrade?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they'll test it to heck and back before using it on humans, and all that. They're scientists and all that.
All I'm saying is just don't get your hopes too high yet. It may well turn out to be a literal implementation of the Flowers For Algernon story.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Meh, I'll go with that. The idea that intellect and charisma don't come together is just something I disagree with. We aren't all regulated by stat points here.
Also, no you are not a snappy dresser. You just don't realize that your purple shirt, orange shorts, red shoes, and black cowboy hat are not exactly sexy.
If you could counter these points and make the arguments that you did, then you can also observe that your reaction was visceral. It's entirely possible that he was being honest, and that on this site, at this hour, on a weekend, he could allow himself to be. I agree with part of what you've said (see what I posted above about social abilities), but your reaction "came off" as knee-jerk, and you could have argued back without assuming, or pointing out, that he seemed elitist. Also, this is Slashdot, who here *isn't* an elitist?? :)
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Bras have no genome. The line did not compute, and therefor was ignored by the parser. Your parser is either set to "verbose", or "display all warnings".
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
In related news scientists have discovered the so called "Religous Gene"
More at 11.
You know how Intel's charging $50 to unlock CPUs?
Perhaps living beings also have additional CPU capacity installed but turned off, requiring some payment for removal of the 'lock out' genes. Possibly in the form of prayers, homage, and sacrifice to the creator.
Or maybe there's actually an evolutionary reason why high intelligence is a problem.
That would explain this situation in regards to the stupidity of the average human.... high intelligence can lead to studying, which reduces time spent on reproduction-related activities, which therefore, reduces the number of babies, and might be disfavored evolutionarily.
Sure. Althouhg, the push-button upgrade to give you the intelligence and dexterity to operate keys is a little more expensive...
Why do I get the awful feeling that this explains the Tea Party?
I think of "Rats of NiMH"
Its been proved again and again that dinosaurs actually disappeared because they became intelligent...so instead of simply eating and breeding, female dinosaurs started to talk about compromise, and buying a house big enough for a family of brontosaurs, and shoes the size of a plasma TV....
How can you have sex with your triceratops wife when, whatever you say, you cant stop her to feel bad about her 10 tm weight? You are doomed to extiction....
And now the same will happen to mice. Its clear to me that those nerdy DNA hackers are all virgin WoW junkies...damn it!
Inhibiting the RGS14 gene product could be counter productive and in fact dangerous. While this strategy may enhance visual memory, it also may decrease hippocampal-based learning and memory: RGS14
Hey! Who left the cage unlatched?
Am I the only one concerned with a smart mouse escaping and breeding smart mice in the wild? Once they can figure out a mouse trap we are all screwed.
Humans haven't really tamed anything. There's all kinds of natural disasters that can and will occur whether humans want them to or not. All humans have managed to do is delude themselves into believing that they are superior to every other species on the planet so that they can slaughter innocent animals in order to satisfy their taste buds, even when there are other sources of food to eat that don't suffer just as we do. Humans also carelessly mistreat the environment with things such as pollution and mass deforestation. For such an 'intelligent' species, humans sure seem shortsighted.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"I wonder if this or similar genes could be responsible for "above average" intelligence in some people."
What makes a person intelligent, exactly? The ability to memorize already established information, or the ability to form ideas and inventions of their own?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
More evidence that high intelligence is pathological in a species and that nature actually works to suppress the development of intelligence beyond a certain rudimentary level. Look how long dinosaurs ruled the Earth without intelligence. Understand how long they had to develop it and did not. Humans somehow got off the reservation a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Not only did we develop vast intelligence, but we developed abilities that ANTICIPATED the need for them. Why did we develop the ability to drive 60, 70,-100 miles per hour or more while weaving in and out of traffic? Unless you are a cheetah, there is no need for that ability. Yet we as cavemen do that easily every day (at least the nut jobs among us do.) The abilities that humans evolved, evolved long before there was any need for them and they far exceeded the need for mere survival. Evolving the ability to evolve and evolving the ability to anticipate need and change for it ahead of time is not conforming to Darwin's theory of evolution as I know it. Something is not understood. This gene merely illustrates that once again.
E Proelio Veritas.
The problem with the Flynn effect is that it does not account for the decreased usage of IQ tests in schools, employment and the military - which constituted the vast majority of usage. Whereas even 25 years ago you might have a pool of millions of results for a given populace, today you are finding that in some countries it has been hard to find 10,000.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Evolution is causal. Just because a cause existed 50 million years ago, doesn't mean that it's there right now. I think that if we had the opportunity to *opt* for a larger (or more efficient) brain in exchange for higher energy consumption, most of us would do it. Humans have tamed the environment, and therefor we change our surroundings, rather than them changing us. We need to take the harness if we want to continue to improve ourselves, and the path of genetic modification seems the inevitable one.
The issue is, if everyone gets this unlock, then whatever the gene was there to prevent cannot be prevented again. This is why genetic diversity is desirable.
""normal" person"
In many cases, "normal person" refers to a brainwashed tool who has no real mind of their own and looks at others hoping to gain acceptance. How utterly pointless.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It's interesting that you brought up homosexuality, what they have found is that the more older siblings(but especially brothers) a guy has, the more likely he is to be gay. It's not just that they don't add kids to the family, they don't compete for women with their brothers either. It's also interesting to note that a lot more men identify as exclusively gay than women, and a significant # of gay identified women end up with men.
Monstar L
Keep in mind that it relates to the people that take the test. If you opt to take an IQ test (not everyone that takes the test opted to, obviously, but many do), there's a higher chance that you've been exposed to the kind of environment/education that incentives critical thinking, and as teaching methods improve and learning resources increase, these people will continue to do better on these tests. We're not talking about the average intelligence of the human species.
Right, but whether or not you seek to take the test shouldn't have any impact on your score. IQ is supposed to be a number that doesn't change for your entire life. If you got a 120 when you were 5, you should still get a 120 when you are 55 and that Environment and education changed a lot in 50 years. Really, you can only argue that people who have a genetic disposition to intelligence also have one to seeking to take an IQ test (I.E. dispostion to show it off). We know that's probably not the case though since a lot of intelligent people are actually withdrawn.
Also, most people DON'T seek to take the test. Their parents or school do. Most IQ tests are taken when people are young as a way of checking for disability or for advanced placement in the education system. Very Rarely does someone go to a Psychologist and say "I want to take an IQ test." Trust me, your insurance doesn't cover a four hour IQ test administered by a Psychologist just cause you want to take one.
Unless you mean those flimsy online IQ tests? You know, the ones that take 10 minutes?
And maybe the gene is there to limit the mouse brain from burning out too fast? It would be interesting to see if there were any differences in how long both groups live.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
It's okay though. A scrappy anti-government type and his zany crew will inadvertantly bring it to light, causing discomfort to a number of ranking members of the Alliance, err, Congress.
Jailbreaking your mice is officially not recommended by Cheese, Inc.
Doing so will void your warranty and you will loose right to customer care provided by Cheese Inc., as well as you won't be able to use the CheeseStore!
---
Q: When we will be able to dump and decrypt the firmware of a mice in order to install some Linux or OSS firmware there, or put mice to browse the web and tweet for us?
A: When scientists discover the gene that is locking Bluetooth and WiFi communication, as well as cable networking using the tail of mice. (just wondering, how to put a RJ45 connector on a tail?)
http://gbl08ma.com
...with their unlimited learning and memory.
;-)
Haven't we always known they ran the world anyway?
Just my 42 cents...
O, HAI!
See also:
U has got it nao?
HTH.
KTHXBAI!
Natural disasters don't discriminate -- plagues do. In the past, anyone without a sufficient immune system would perish, and so would anyone with any significant allergy. The only things that can kill people en-masse now are large natural disasters, which don't care about your genes, or other people, who may care about your genes if said genes give your skin a certain pigment. Well, people can also starve, but good genes won't save you from that, either. Keep in mind that people may also die of cancer, but if they've already done all the "breeding" they were going to so far in their lifetime, then that doesn't effect the gene pool (same goes for all major causes of death over breeding age).
So, yeah, we're deluded and arrogant, but we've managed to at least change the way we're "naturally selected" into a more "unnatural" selection.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
All humans have managed to do is delude themselves into believing that they are superior to every other species on the planet so that they can slaughter innocent animals in order to satisfy their taste buds, even when there are other sources of food to eat that don't suffer just as we do.
Yeah those damn insensitive humans oh and don't forget those wolves too I mean the forest is full of yummy berries and even mushrooms but all they want to do is eat those cute innocent deer.
Both statements are true. However, keep in mind that both would also apply to vaccination. We opt to alter our immune system in a certain way because, over a span of time, we found that it saves lives. There are always going to be anomalies, but that's why we have the ability to discern. We keep deadly plagues frozen even though they haven't been seen in the wild for decades, because these diseases may hold the key to solving problems in the future. Also, even if we do start altering our genes like changing clothes, not everyone is going to have the same taste -- our creative diversity will lead to the genetic one.
(yes, I'm being optimistic, we're probably going to design human weapons before we cure cancer, but it's going to take time anyway, so I'd prefer to think that we have a future rather than an apocalypse awaiting us)
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
cheesy overlords? No. No! I did NOT mean Christine O'Donnell. Really.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Also, most people DON'T seek to take the test. Their parents or school do. Most IQ tests are taken when people are young as a way of checking for disability or for advanced placement in the education system. Very Rarely does someone go to a Psychologist and say "I want to take an IQ test."
I was waiting for someone to make that point, I knew I missed it the moment I clicked 'Submit'.
Ok, but the fact that any person would choose to either take or administer the test is going to change the result. The school wants to improve its methods, the parents want to "improve" (guide, whatever) their children. Even if they don't change the result for the current batch of people being tested, it's going to change the result for the batch after that. One of the reasons that the test is there is so that we can draw conclusions (even if some choose to use it to brag), and part of these conclusions are going to be how to improve ourselves and/or our methods. Yes, I realize that the common mechanical reason for the test is selection/sorting, but it's also used "for good"...
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Can't have much of one without the other I'm afraid. Being able to remember things is an important component in visualizing and contemplating a thing. I can't speak for anyone else who learns things, but when I learn things, I have to "absorb" it into my mind in some way and then make it fit in with other bits and pieces of information in my brain. My tolerance for what "fits" with other pieces of knowledge tends to be rather low as certain details mean a lot to me when I seek to understand something. (Let's put it this way -- magnets kind of piss me off -- I still don't understand them. A friend once tried to explain them to me with talk about atomic spin polarities and some such, but to me, that was just detailing properties which, while potentially useful information, doesn't explain how or why that actually works... and of course when I pointed that out to him he too was kinda pissed.)
And I might also assert that there are different forms of intelligence. In some cases, intelligence comes in the form of being able to come up with incredible ideas -- that kind of intelligence I simply do not possess... wish I did, but it seems all of my great ideas are invariably already thought of by others...people I consider to be a lot smarter than I am. I am kind of like "Leonard" compared to "Sheldon"; able to "keep up" but not quite lead the way.
"They're LABORATORY MICE ... their GENES have all been SPLICED ..."
"For such an 'intelligent' species, humans sure seem shortsighted"
You do realise that humans are like... completely different people, and the few can ruin things for the many? Like, if you find somebody with a 50 IQ, you can't determine from that that "humans are a stupid species"; the fact that there are people with IQ's of 50 doesn't discredit the work that people with IQ's of 150 do, just as rapists don't invalidate the work that the charitable and selfless do, and the fact that you paint a species of 6 billion with a single brush doesn't mean that there aren't people who can tell different people apart exist.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Just be sure to have them eliminate the Clevon gene...
This will probably be modded into oblivion, but I am compelled to say this as simply and as honestly as I can. I can take a hit to my karma, and I understand that it may be off topic.
I was once an overthinker, still am sometimes. My mind was always moving contemplating everything, and I like it that way. Sometimes I wondered if my thoughts were out of control, but then pride set it and I would think that I was the smart one and that people who didn't think like me were too dumb to know better. I wanted to learn everything, so I studied science, but I was stuck with the realisation that what I had once thought of as "proof" didn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. So, I studied philosophy and even looked into metaphysics. I eventually read Descartes, and realised that the only undeniable statement is "I think, therefore I am". Everything else was based on assumption. I didn't want to admit it at the time, but that proved that all knowledge comes from faith in something. I then looked for a priori knowledge to see if there were something that we "just knew" to be true that I could start with, but began to get frustrated with all of the ridiculous suggestions.
The whole time, I was troubled. Although I saw the world as a beautiful place with more depth than the average person could comprehend, I was saddened that nobody else could see it the way that I did. Even though I believed I knew the reasons for everything, my life was still falling apart. I had swings of wild ecstasy followed by depression. I felt that the short depressions were worth the highs and that I had attained the best life could give me. I was wrong.
I would like to say that I found God, but the truth is that He found me. I thought that I knew Him because I had read the Bible and had been to church, but despite my own wisdom, I knew very little about Him. In the end, knowledge let me down as I realised that the world I had built was a fantasy world. When every body and everything, even my mind failed me, God lifted me up and showed me His way. Only then, could I really understand the Bible. Now, it is hard for me to understand how I ever ignored the truth in front of me. The scriptures are practical and have answered with ease all of the questions that I thought were beyond my grasp with logic that I cannot deny. I discovered that I didn't care anymore to understand me because it isn't about me.
I still get upset when some Christian tries to persuade somebody with faulty logic like Pascal's Wager, especially when there are so many better arguments. I particularly despise the televangelists whose knowledge of God is probably less than an atheist's. I can say that now my thoughts are tamed and more focused and productive. A lot of the old paradoxes that used to amuse me are like childish games now. Most of all, I am happy and at peace. There is still plenty for me to contemplate. The problem was that before, I was starting with a faulty foundation, so all of my learning was shaky. The foundation which has been given to me now is sturdy and sure. I have questioned it and tried it, and have found it unshakeable.
The Bible says that no temptation has taken you but that which is common to man. Don't think that you are alone in this. It may be a gene that makes it more prominent, but how we deal with it is up to each of us.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
You both make good points: there was probably a really useful point to that bit of evolution, and it may not be around anymore.
That said, we are NOT in complete control of our environment. We interact with it, and there are various feedback mechanisms, just as there have always been. These days we just have stronger and more deliberate effects on our environment--but with many unintended consequences. And we still have to deal with plenty that's beyond our control.
did any one see deep blue sea where they mess with sharks genes and made them smarter?
Genetic modification still limits you to a body of flesh and blood. I'd say that mind uploading is the way to go. Apart from solving the problem of mortality, it would allow your mind to grow without worrying about the limits imposed by the size of your skull. And it only becomes a better bargain as we begin to expand into space.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
unlocking a mysterious region of the brain
It's no mystery, obviously it's the upper multiplier. Probably just needed a Bios upgrade.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Try craigslist.
oh wait...
10 FOR X = 0 TO 65535
20 POKE X, 0
30 NEXT X
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I would be very cautious with such statements. We did not get rid of diseases by growing immune to them or by developing a natural defense, and we are not the only things on this planet that adopt to changes. We are dependent on our culture and way of living to keep our environment livable. Hygiene standards, medical treatment and a steady supply with fresh drinking water and food prevent widespread plagues in the industrial nations. Let that break down only for a few weeks on a national scale and we will quickly see how "unnatural" our selection really is.
Though the big panic of the 80s and 90s has calmed down, HIV is still killing scores in the First World. $deity help us all if it ever finds a way to spread over the air.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
There really is a "stupid gene."
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's probably hardwired to run away from cats or something. Unlocked, it might make the mice more curious or cause them to pause to assess the situation rather than just running. A split second could mean the difference between getting eaten and not getting eaten, so the hard-wired runners don't get eaten as much. Mice don't have to be a whole lot smarter to live as mice, but they do have to be pretty good at getting away from cats.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
But the title says Re:Cool, it's like Intel Upgrade Service for a bra and doesn't actually mention genes. I'd forgotten WTF the entire thread was about anyway and presumed Intel had somehow invented an upgrade so bras could have more mammary installed. ;)
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
Too bad 'group selection' is a largely discredited idea in evolutionary biology. If the individual doesn't reproduce their genes die with them no matter how cool it might have been to the others around it to have around. However there is a more evidence-based conception of the evolutionary utility to individuals of homosexuality: sexually antagonistic selection.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Evolution isn't causal. It's, well, non-anti-causal, which isn't quite the same thing. That is to say, traits don't evolve in response to things, stuff without appropriate traits gets wiped out by those things. The difference is key. A trait doesn't persist because it's an advantage, it persists because it's not a sufficiently bad disadvantage, which is a weaker constraint. In the context of TFA, a gene that makes mice "dumber" doesn't mean that the gene provides a hidden advantage that has a better tradeoff, and it doesn't mean that being dumb provided a big advantage. All it means is that being dumb wasn't a disadvantage. Or, at least, wasn't a disadvantage strong enough to hurt the mice's reproductive chances. Due to statistics, and something called "neutral drift", an allele that is "neutral" in that it doesn't result in a significant disadvantage to reproduction, has a fair chance at taking over a population, over enough time. Not that it will happen a lot. But, "fair" chance here means it's not vanishingly small.
So, if a gene breaks comes into being that makes mice dumb, but being dumb doesn't stop them from finding food, evading predators, and having sex, then it's a neutral gene. So while not guaranteed to happen, there's nothing unusual about this gene becoming dominant, or in fact, part of the entire species. It certainly doesn't mean that it provides some sort of advantage as a trade-off. Genes that provide an advantage are much more likely to be passed on, until the entire species has it. But, ones that aren't strongly disadvantageous can be, too. All mammals have a gene that lets them make vitamin C. Some primates, including humans, have a broken version and so cannot produce vitamin C. That's because out ancestors ate mostly fruits and berries, which are full of vitamin C. So, when by chance we lost our ability to make it, it had no effect. This doesn't mean it provided a hidden disadvantage. It was simply not needed, so when it broke, natural selection did not kill animals who didn't have it.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
I don't see any better mousetrap here. Lets back it up now.
Even by Slashdot standards, this post is extraordinarily narcissistic. While you are probably the most interesting thing in your world...the one you share with the rest of us actually has other people in it. If you want to talk about yourself this much, hash it out with a shrink.
And why are people modding this informative? Because you all know so much about erroneous now? Sheesh.
But I thought that mice were already the most intelligent life on Earth :-)
A person is smart.
People are stupid
Just remember, "You can unlock any door, if you only have the key."
Trix are for kids!
just as a heads up, it's spelled therefore in english.
I agree it's used for good. I also think that the fact that it's supposed to remain stable is kind of crap. Simply put, somebody who is under stress isn't going to score as high as they normally would. period. It's a nice indicator and guideline but it's hardly a science. It's just a very sad stepping stone on the path to quantifying the brain.
As for these mice, I think these are great findings. But like you said, it's a double edged sword. I believe it's been proven that older adults can come to accurate conclusions as quickly as younger adults because of their experience and the ability to automatically and effectively remove unimportant stimuli. If we learn to absorb everything, we might lose the ability to find the important aspects of information effectively.
I do have hope that we'll learn how to make our brains FASTER rather than just smarter. I think that's really the goal we need to accomplish.
Also, increased intelligence likely comes at a significant food cost...remember, our brains eat 25% of our caloric intake. If this mutation caused more energy to be routed to the brain, then being smarter would have to outweigh the disadvantage of requiring more food.
<LedRightIntoIt>And that just means you are gay.</LedRightIntoIt>
Be careful what you wish for. People with Hyperthymesia (total perfect memory) describe it as being "as non-stop, uncontrollable and totally exhausting." This could be the gene that locks that down and keeps us sane.
http://www.physorg.com/news129561635.html
"majority...low average"?!? Unless you have astonishing outliers, the majority = average, particularly on things like IQ, where it's a Bell Curve.
Think you need to re-evaluate yourself on the scale you're using...
Unfortunately it's likely not. Evolution or God (your choice) rarely gives something for nothing. This gene is likely there for a reason. Disabling it will have some drawback, and it may not be an obvious connection.
Dejumpering RGS14's apparently increases memory, the desire to tinker with things, reduces social ability, and keeps up glued to the interwebz. Slashdot lives on dejumpered RGS14 basement dwelling rodents already.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
I bet there's ton of people like me, that at age 10, stopped paying attention to useless people talking too much about religion, either saying they are atheists - like you - or believers, and I still think we're wiser because we don't need to listen to self-glorified irrelevant comments.
Actually, it's very possible for an allele that provides a small negative impact to spread throughout a species, just due to pure luck. After all, evolution has no way of differentiating between someone who has very successful offspring and someone who has very lucky offspring, and occasionally the latter will occur. If it spreads widely enough, it will become entrenched in the species' gene pool, despite being deleterious.
Also, it's not like evolution gets to pick perks and add stat points like in an RPG; living beings are hugely complicated entities, so sometimes evolution will promote a large chunk of genetic code that, for instance, improves speed and reflexes significantly despite also including a little coda that weakens intelligence. If you can target just that little chunk at the end, then you get to keep the benefits while disabling the drawbacks.
Wait... that's not cheese... it's an iPad... and it's running Linux! Oh so cool.... SNAP!
In fact, food is so readily available to such a large percent of the population that we over eat. If the only downside was energy consumption this would solve two problems.
Yeah, and just like a few Islamic extemists don't get two countries invaded and occupied by the worlds biggest super power.
A person is smart. People are stupid
ah, a student of Kierkegaard! The crowd is untrue!
The Admin and the Engineer
Exactly! I, for one, welcome our new genetically altered, intellectually and cerebrally superior mousy overlords! (The answer is 42?! What was the question? What do you get when you multiply six by nine?? How does that help? This computer has bugs...)
The Admin and the Engineer
The article states, "'A big question this research raises is why would we, or mice, have a gene that makes us less smart – a Homer Simpson gene?'Hepler says. 'I believe that we are not really seeing the full picture. RGS14 may be a key control gene in a part of the brain that, when missing or disabled, knocks brain signals important for learning and memory out of balance.'"
Oh, come on. If these scientists were current on their sci-fi, they'd know that the disabling that gene will affect the human growth rate, ala Ender's Shadow.
"In the context of TFA, a gene that makes mice "dumber" doesn't mean that the gene provides a hidden advantage that has a better tradeoff, and it doesn't mean that being dumb provided a big advantage. All it means is that being dumb wasn't a disadvantage. Or, at least, wasn't a disadvantage strong enough to hurt the mice's reproductive chances."
Since it's a single gene, it's pretty likely that mice without that gene would have arisen at some time. Probably more than once. Assuming we don't usually see mice without the gene, that means that having the gene makes the mice more fit than not having the gene. So it does mean that, probably, having that gene is an advantage over not having it, whether because dumb mice are better than smart ones, or the gene does something else as well.
I think I see what you are saying. Dumber mice didn't have a survival advantage. The dumb mice were favored by the females as mates.
All humans have managed to do is delude themselves into believing that they are superior to every other species on the planet so that they can slaughter innocent animals in order to satisfy their taste buds, even when there are other sources of food to eat that don't suffer just as we do.
Yeah those damn insensitive humans oh and don't forget those wolves too I mean the forest is full of yummy berries and even mushrooms but all they want to do is eat those cute innocent deer.
FWI: Wolves will supplement their diet with fruit and vegetable matter; they willingly eat the berries of mountain ash, lily of the valley, bilberries, blueberries and cowberry. Other fruits include nightshade, apples and pears. They readily visit melon fields during the summer months.
You can't take the sky from me...
I have contemplated what makes some people with above average intelligence different and how they can either tone it down or otherwise adjust comfortably into society,
Drink early, drink often;
You can't take the sky from me...
A bushman wouldn't be able to "do the intelligent things you consider intelligent", but you wouldn't survive long in his world. It's relative, but you victimize yourself and place yourself on top of other in a egocentrical "I must be better".
Exactly right. This phenomenon in some nerds/geeks was best described in Big Bang Theory when Sheldon claimed that the reason he simply couldn't learn to drive was that he was "too evolved for driving."
To be fair, you see the same problem in humans with all sorts of disabilities. There's an extremely vocal group in the deaf community who are against cochlea implants because it takes away "their identity" or something. Some people just don't like to admit to themselves that they have any failings. Being deaf is a disadvantage. It's not your fault, but other people can do something that you can't. Get over it, and if there's a technological solution, use it. Similarly, inability to interact socially with people is a disadvantage. Just because it's a disadvantage that has correlation with high intelligence doesn't mean it's a good thing. Other people can do something you can't, which makes you inferior in that area, not superior. Get over it, and try to compensate for this particular disability as best as you can.
They readily visit melon fields during the summer months.
Yeah put a large deer with a hurt leg in that same field and I bet you those wolves aren't going to have a fruit salad for dinner that night
I don't really consider "toning it down" to actually be dumbing yourself down. Speaking in a manner that isn't a pretentious a-hole is like speaking another language.
I learned to "dumb it down" decades ago, but I don't think that using correct terminology is being pretentious or shitting on those who can't.
You can't take the sky from me...
Some people are smart, and since they don't notice that it makes them different, they become outsiders.
I noticed, but even if I do my social-interaction shtick, I feel alone in the midst of all those people who can't understand my genuine thoughts. I have to censor myself and only use words and concepts from the "normal people know of this" subset of the things I think about: Lifelong annoyance.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm sorry, but you come off as very elitist; "I don't fit into society, but I'm way above average and everybody else is too stupid (to understand me).
Elitism usually draws envy and resentment from the lower classes. We're sorry you're upset at us for being smarter than you, we really are.
You can't take the sky from me...
I am compelled to say this as simply and as honestly as I can.
tl;dr
You can't take the sky from me...
Other studies showed that mice with a disabled RGS14 gene had difficulties engaging in social situations with females, resulting in a lack of descendants.
Normal is a horrible thing to be. Statistically it's normal to be poor, and uneducated, living under a despotic regime. Even in western societies normal is uneducated, ugly and boring. By virtue of being born somewhere decent, we are all better off, and education only helps that. If I had to swap with anyone I went to high school with, I'd kill myself moments later.
This is hardly the first report that increasing or decreasing the expression of certain genes in the mouse can improve performance on certain laboratory tests of intelligence. However, these tests are very regimented and simplistic compared to the complex cognitive demands that a mouse encounters in the wild. The investigators used two standard tests of cognition: novel object recognition (does the animal remember an object that it has seen before, as judged by how interested it is in examining it?) and the Morris water maze (does the mouse remember the location of an underwater platform in a pool?
It is not at all clear that improved performance in these tests correlates to improved performance in the many behavioral tasks that a mouse must be able to carry out to find food, avoid predators, and reproduce, and even less clear that they are relevant to the intellectual challenges that a human faces.
Abuse of the word "like" there I think. A few Islamic extremists didn't get two countries invaded; countries don't tend to be invaded these days for single reasons, invading a country's a big thing that has to be more worth while doing to more of the major players than it will cause harm to the major players, and usually that will means that there are various people which for various reasons have a vested interest in the removal of an enemy. Anyone who thinks that complex things happen for a single reason is just a fool. I don't even go to the shop for a single reason.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
People are shortsighted compared to what they need to be, but not compared to other animals.
It's organizations of people (and, of course, mobs) that are really shortsighted. It's the difficult problem of credit assignment. How do you ensure that the person making the decision is charged with either the rewards or penalties that result? It's the more difficult as the decision is usually shared between many different people, some of whom made the best decision available, and others the most self-serving.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In agreement with you, it's clear that the attempt of the IQ test is to measure an innate genetic disposition which determines intelligence, rejecting any idea that the capacity of a person to be more intelligent can be changed by any possible means such as education or alteration of environment.
You missed the qualifier:
A person can be smart.
People can be stupid.
Evidence in support of the notion that people can be smart: I'm sending this message to people over a network of high tech inventions that exists because even with the drag effect of stupid people, smart people can still come together and make pretty impressive things happen that can span the globe.
Evidence in support of the notion that a person can be not smart: Bush.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
They readily visit melon fields during the summer months.
Yeah put a large deer with a hurt leg in that same field and I bet you those wolves aren't going to have a fruit salad for dinner that night
They wouldn't deserve their place at the top of the food chain if they tolerated weakness in their prey.
You can't take the sky from me...
You should keep in mind that it is also quite likely that the "stupid gene" was favorable back when a high IQ meant you would overthink potentially life-threatening actions which are not present today and that not having the gene is actually an advantage. Or perhaps there simply hasn't been any advantage to having a high IQ throughout most of history so far which means that the mutation has spread slowly and is very rare (statistically speaking).
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Like maybe it makes these stupid mice more likely to have sex without birth control. Call it the Bristol Palin gene.
I think also that it's much easier to spot when things are done wrong than when things are done right, as things done wrong will (by definition) result in an unexpected and undesired event, whereas when things are done right (in the context of long term decisions) there isn't an event where you can come out and announce success, more it becomes part of the status quo. Probably also though many good forward-thinking decisions have become social-habits, in that individuals don't need to consider that, for example, learning to read and write, will be a good thing to do for their personal long term, because it has already been decided so now it's just a done thing (once again, part of the status quo).
Of coures we also have democracies that are limping along because when given the chance the masses will often vote for things like "let's spend less money on educating our children", but then complain 10-20 years later when there's an unskilled generation entering the workforce missing vital skills which negatively affects the economy. Well DUH!
I think people's sense of foresight goes down when their sense of entitlement goes up, and a sense of entitlement is one thing that, particulary in the west, we have waaaaaay too much of, to the detriment of our race as a whole :-/
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Well, I guess I'm glad you found something that would work for you. Perhaps. A lot depends on things you *aren't* saying. E.g., do you feel that your way is the only way? That everyone else should follow it? If so, then I'm *sure* you gave up on philosophy WAY too soon.
I also found gods. Plural. (Actually, several different times I found a god, but it was different gods at different times.) I'm quite convinced that they are real, but also that they aren't a part of the external universe. Think of them as internal actualizations of Jungian Archetypes. They aren't purely mental, as they are built into the hardware (wetware?). And they are literally indescribable in language. I don't think they serialize, but even if they do communication through language depends upon similar experiences. The best one can do is attempt to evoke them in someone else. And even when this appears to be successful, it's impossible to be certain that what they experience traces back to the same thing you experienced. Only that it has certain descriptive elements in common.
And anyone who actually reads the bible and is still inspired by it is reading it through very strong filters. You don't want to hear what it sounds like to me.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It'll take longer, but a gene that is truly neutral and confers no advantages will eventually be wrecked by mutations, like your vitamin C example. Mutations happens all the time, but if they hit something important, that individual won't survive for long. However, in the case of a gene coding for a neutral protein, mutations won't be corrected out, eventually causing the gene to no longer code for the same protein.
The secret of News Corporation scientists at their laboratory on Island of Dr. Moreau, who have been working with cloned mice with "fully functional human brains" to perfect the ideal republican candidate is out.
Just remove all the genes encoding for brain development!
Or if you believe Nicholas Taleb, only on things like that, and possibly not even. Hight has a bell curve distribution, as does weight, but possibly not intelligence, and certainly not anything like wealth.
True
Everyone here but me is being elitist.
"Humans have tamed the environment".
This is simply not true. Humans have altered their environment temporarily in many cases and irreparably in others, but to say that we have somehow escaped the bounds of the constraints that our phenotypes impose on our genotypes is naive at best.
That said, the potential for genetic modification is vast, but also fraught with incredible difficulties, since the actions of genes, seldom have a single effect and the unexpected effects can easily swamp the desired ones. This explains much of why evolution is as erratic as it is.
Selection for more capable, larger brains (that require more energy,not less) may well result in the creation of miniaturized atomic weapons with vastly larger yields available to all, rather than benefits to mankind. My guess is that humanity will destroy most of the planets biodiversity essential to understand these kinds of genetic trade-offs, long before the technology to implement them ever emerges.
The notion that natural disasters don't discriminate has no factual basis, except for extremely rare kinds of disasters, such as death by asteroid. Those who live in flood plains will be a slightly greater risk. Those that live in fire-prone, or tornado-prone, or hurricane-prone areas will also be at slightly greater risk. While the results of this kind of selection may not be well understood in humans, this is hardly evidence that a small but definite selection pressure does not exist.
Indeed, if it did not, it would be difficult to explain the multiple evolution of fire-resistant plant communities that actually require fire at times. Such fires in the past were largely the result of near random lightening strikes, but clearly there has been directional selection that has occurred.
Perhaps I am simply too contemplative, but that is something I simply cannot turn off except when I am sleeping.
Oh, woo me, the intelligent creature who suffers and is "always on". All those other stupid fucks sleep well and go about their meaningless lifes...
It's okay, there are plenty of drugs that can replicate those feelings of "my brain is always on" and the delusions of grandeur. I suspect GP may be on some of them.
There are quite a few people with impressive memories, even photographic memories. That's not usually a good thing. Forgetting is just as much part of being smart as remembering.
Math and music, creativity, memorization, conceptualization, logic and critical thinking, humor, aptitude with language and literacy, empathy, cognitive speed, athleticism - IQ is a poor measure of intelligence, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to measure intelligence at all.
I don't think it's arrogant to admit you are above the mean in one or more of these categories, but it's easy to see how many of them relate to and influence each other. It isn't unreasonable to hypothesize that a single gene might have a broad effect on many of the above categories, although my limited experience suggests they are "clumped" somewhat. I'm no neurophysiologist, but it may be related to structural differences, the most obvious of which may be the left and right hemispheres.
The reality of modern thought on brain structure and intelligence suggests there is a feedback loop between pure biology and behavior/environment. If that is the case, people with lower than average inherent intelligence can actually improve it with behavior, whether it's reading, education, fitness, diet, exposure to individuals with more advanced intellectual capacity, etc.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Hahaha... it goes both ways. If I speak "in generalities" someone attacks me for it saying "you can't speak for everyone!" And when I speak for myself alone, I am a narcissist. I guess it should have sufficed to say, without details, that I think differently that my peers and have always done so for reasons I don't fully understand and would like to.
So what you are saying is that everywhere you looked, you found no complete or satisfactory answers. And as a result of your exhaustive search you found what amounts to nothing. Therefore, the answer is "magic?" Nice.
Intelligent mice are more likely to realize in cases where the food supply is low that they shouldn't reproduce, so there is more food for themselves. The stupid mice reproduce anyway, passing on the genetic trait keeping the intelligence from emerging.
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
Unfortunately it's likely not. Evolution or God (your choice) rarely gives something for nothing. This gene is likely there for a reason. Disabling it will have some drawback, and it may not be an obvious connection.
I agree. As a neuroscientist, it irritates me to no end when the media go from "$geneticmanipulation makes mice learn this task faster" to "$geneticmanipulation makes mice smarter". Smart is not a well defined concept. Learning faster on one specific test does not guarantee an increase in overall fitness.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
People are fucking dumb because we constantly create situations for them where the path of least resistance and great reward is to be fucking dumb. Just like the mice don't evolve genes to help them navigate mazes because that's something they don't need to do, we don't evolve smart humans because they don't need to be smart in order to survive.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
...aand the "Secret of NIMH" goes from fantasy cartoon adventure to a potentially disturbing prediction.
The Penguin Producer
This is another reason why we don't progress faster. The archaic belief that believing in an all-encompassing being somehow propels us forward. It does not, it sends us backwards. It would be fine if it was an individual belief that stays with the individual instead of creating mass hysteria and stupidity, but this is not the case. Religion is responsible for more human suffering and science slowdowns than any other thing on the face of the planet. It is a cancer, a cancer built on lies and self-delusion. It should be eradicated.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
That's just an assertion. It depends heavily on the definitions of "I", "think", and "am". "Therefore" is probably ok.
.evom ton seod gis eht
Looks like there's hope for Americans yet!
Yet, humans claim to be moral and intelligent. If that was true, they'd realize that members of other species needn't be slaughtered for such selfish reasons other than actual survival (which doesn't happen often, as there's usually other kinds of food). That is the difference. Humans claim to be able to control themselves, but I've yet to see that ability in many people.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Being able to memorize a few things, while important, certainly isn't everything. Schools teach that it is, however. Can you regurgitate already established information that you likely won't use at the job you wish to possess because we don't allow you to pick your own classes? If so, you're intelligent!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"and the fact that you paint a species of 6 billion with a single brush doesn't mean that there aren't people who can tell different people apart exist."
I know very well that there exists intelligent humans. The number appears to be fairly slim, however. The majority of the human population appears to be made up of brainwashed tools with illogical beliefs who have no mind of their own. Corruption flourishes in the government and corporations, and they keep trying to use their worthless votes to 'change' something. Hopefully they do get more intelligent in the future.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"People are shortsighted compared to what they need to be, but not compared to other animals."
That may be true, but other species usually don't have the capabilities to destroy as much as humans do. Many humans certainly aren't careful for being so 'intelligent', and they certainly need to be.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"ugly"
Well, I don't know about that.
"If I had to swap with anyone I went to high school with"
As would I, but only because that would mean that I'd have to spend my time attempting to memorize tremendous amounts of useless information because I wouldn't be allowed to pick classes that relate to the job I wish to possess, and be brainwashed with the illogical morals of society. I really don't care for the current public education system at all. It's so inefficient as it is.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"Math"
Only if you have the ability to do things other than regurgitate established knowledge.
"music"
Wait, what? Music? Why?
"logic and critical thinking"
This is something that a majority of the population lacks. It's a shame, really.
"humor"
What? Why? You could be the most boring person in the world, yet still be "the most intelligent." Conversely, you could be the funniest person in the world, yet still be "the least intelligent."
"aptitude with language and literacy"
That's just regurgitating already established information. While it certainly helps a lot to be able to speak a language and read, it isn't necessarily required to be intelligent, and it isn't something that makes you intelligent on its own.
"empathy"
Not needed to be intelligent, and isn't a sign of intelligence on its own.
"cognitive speed"
It helps, but not so much if you're only able to regurgitate already established information.
"athleticism"
Not at all. This has little to do with intelligence.
"but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to measure intelligence at all."
It's difficult to measure it properly, however.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I've seen it hypothesized that losing the ability to synthesize vitamin C was an advantage because everything that the body has to synthesize takes energy away from other activities.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
tasty, tasty murder...
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Exactly. Call me when my prey stops being too weak minded to be sentient.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Or, even better, don't bother. By then IT should be able to call me itself.
(slashdot posting without preview now...)
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Although I appreciate your perspective, all of the things I listed are different kinds of intelligence. I should preface this by saying I am not a professional in the field. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so you people with letters feel free to jump in.
I thought it was clear from the context that in regards to math I was talking about the ability to work with numbers, not memorize times tables (that's memorization and recall, of course).
Yes, music. Yes, humor. Yes emphatically empathy (this is a vital intelligence that is completely absent from public discourse), and yes, athleticism (AKA kinesthetic intelligence).
These are just links I grabbed randomly, but there is significant material that covers them as well. I'm not sure why you are so hostile towards rote memorization. I agree that it is over-emphasized in the current system, but it is an important kind of intelligence.
I don't have the energy to explain why understanding languages is another kind, but it's all out there. Verbal intelligence maybe.
I would never dispute that it is difficult to measure intelligence, I simply stated that there are parameters by which it can be measured - if imperfectly. It sounds as though you are working from the false premise that "Intelligence" is a single fact or feature, but modern science does not support that assessment. Each of these items are separate kinds of intelligences. They are interrelated in different ways, and influence each other, but they are distinct from each other as well.
Regards,
Stone
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
"Yes, music"
I still don't see how creating a bunch of sounds qualifies as intelligence.
"Yes, humor"
From the link: "A sense of humor is what holds things together when everything is falling apart."
There's also something called "controlling your emotions." I don't really get angry or sad as most people do, because I recognize that doing so won't change anything. I also don't need to constantly make jokes to remain entertained.
"Yes emphatically"
While it is useful to be able to comprehend another persons view on something, it matters little if their reason for believing what they do isn't a logical one.
"I don't have the energy to explain why understanding languages is another kind"
Important if you want to communicate with others? Yes. However, just because you're unable to communicate with others, that doesn't mean you aren't intelligent. That is all I was saying.
"I agree that it is over-emphasized in the current system, but it is an important kind of intelligence."
Far more than over-emphasized. Terribly so. Memorizing of things that you will use is important, however. I just don't like how the public education system forces people to attempt to memorize information that they won't even use at the job that they wish to possess. It's simply inefficient.
"It sounds as though you are working from the false premise that "Intelligence" is a single fact or feature"
Not really. I understand that different people are good at different things, and that a genius in mathematics may perform poorly at other subjects and such. However, there are certain things which I don't see why they are considered a form of intelligence.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
there are certain things which I don't see why they are considered a form of intelligence.
Then you should study up. I'm sorry, but you're arguing against facts on topics which you don't understand and about which you don't appear to want to learn. I don't really have anything else to say on the topic.
Best luck,
Stone
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
I understand what you're saying, but I guess it's just the fact that I don't like music at all and I believe that controlling your emotions is very important (not necessarily making a joke out of everything, just being calm). I wasn't really trying to say that such things aren't important to a degree.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Your vote's aren't worthless, it's just that the things that you think are your votes aren't the actual things that are your votes. Your votes that give you the most power is your currency, where every pound, dollar, euro etc, is a vote, it conveys with it a small amount of accumulatable power, and you have a lot of choice over who you give those to. I know people like to pretend that they're helpless in this complex and unbalanced world, but that's mostly just a way of avoiding the idea of personal responsibility. For example, everytime somebody buys cokacola, they have blood on their hands. If people didn't give their votes to cokacola, they wouldn't have money to buy arms to slaughter union leaders in developing countries with it. Thing is, somebody can know that, and still continue to give them money, but it's not because they're stupid or short sighted, it's because they just don't care. Corruption isn't limited to governments and corporations. People can be corrupted just by a sugar/caffeine drink. We have a lot more power than people like to admit; if we didn't, there wouldn't be so much money in PR.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
"I know people like to pretend that they're helpless in this complex and unbalanced world"
Aren't I? In order for such a thing to work I'd need to convince everyone else to not buy their products. Not so easy. I try, but it certainly isn't an easy thing to do (and in many cases it's difficult or next to impossible to avoid buying everything that these greedy corporations produce). Hopeless? Not so much. Difficult? Yes. Many people seem to be too blinded to see the problem at hand. A government that doesn't *accept* this money would also help, but we all know that likely isn't going to happen.
"People can be corrupted"
I'm well aware, but the ones who seem to do the most damage *are* the corrupt corporations and government. The shortsighted, uncaring people don't help, either.
"We have a lot more power than people like to admit"
If we're united. We're not.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Is it really immoral to eat/kill animals without the explicit need? Remember that the great majority of those animals would not exist if it weren't for their eventual use as meat. So they get a life of relative leisure - free from the dangers of predators, fed as necessary, health looked after etc. and all we as for in return is a relatively painless death at some time in the future (a fate they are not aware of either - so no stress from this).
That seems a pretty good deal to me. In fact, that seems a much better deal then living in the wild, constantly cold, hungry and scared - not to mention a death filled with much pain and suffering. Which is what I assume is the alternative that is being proposed for them.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Oh, yes. It was. Otherwise I wasn't as elaborate or I wouldn't have exactly cared as much about it :)
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
"Is it really immoral to eat/kill animals without the explicit need?"
Why would a 'moral' being slaughter another being who suffers just as they do for no reason? Humans are supposedly 'intelligent', and they should start to show it.
"Remember that the great majority of those animals would not exist if it weren't for their eventual use as meat."
I'm sure they would rather not exist if the sole purpose for their existence was to be given a cruel death for absolutely no reason, if they were able to comprehend that.
"So they get a life of relative leisure - free from the dangers of predators, fed as necessary, health looked after etc. and all we as for in return is a relatively painless death at some time in the future (a fate they are not aware of either - so no stress from this)."
There's simply no need to do so. They would rather *not* be slaughtered, that much is certain. If they knew it was coming, they certainly would be afraid. There's simply no point in doing this unless it is absolutely needed (self defense, survival).
"That seems a pretty good deal to me. In fact, that seems a much better deal then living in the wild, constantly cold, hungry and scared - not to mention a death filled with much pain and suffering."
Living for a brief period before you're slaughtered sounds better than being free and living a normal life? I don't even want to know what your views on what actions the government should take are.
" Which is what I assume is the alternative that is being proposed for them."
Yes, the alternative is leave them alone unless needed.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
And here my psychotherapist insists I don't need Xanax. Well, technically, I don't need to sleep in a comfortable bed, either, but it's sure as hell more palatable.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
"In order for such a thing to work I'd need to convince everyone else to not buy their products"
The correctness of other peoples actions is not a prerequisit for the correctness of one's own, thankfully you're only responsible for your own actions, and you do have the power to be part of it or not.
You say:
"I'm well aware, but the ones who seem to do the most damage *are* the corrupt corporations and government"
and then
"If we're united. We're not"
But governments and corporations are people united... just... not in the way you and I might like! But most of the damage done there isn't done by stupidity or short sightedness, it's mostly a case of not valuing the lives of others, which don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that as a defense!! It's much much worse than being stupid. But even outside those closed circled, people are united behind what those corpuses do, I mean if we take the example of cokacola again (just because what they do is easy to quantify etc), everybody who gives them money is uniting with them to give them the power to kill people who try demand rights for workers to be paid a decent wage for making that drink. A term I like that describes the process (of in this case PR & marketing) is "manufacturing concent", the job is to mislead people to get them to unite and give their power to these companies in the form of currency. But manufactured concent is still concent, people do have the choice, and people do take that choice. You, personally, don't have the power to override all of them, because if you, like I, never buy cokacola ever again... we're still going to be outvoted by everyone who does. But that's democracy for you, you shouldn't confuse being out voted with not having a vote, no one in their right mind claims that democracy doesn't have any losers and that everybody wins.
I know, it does suck though that people are so cold hearted as to not be more careful about who they give their votes to. One place to watch with interest is the southern end of Latin America. Ignore local presses, because there's a lot of anti-them-lot propagander, because they ARE starting to unite, and look after their people. I've been learning a bit about the work of Hugo Chavez for example, and he's doing a lot of great things, despite being portrayed as a crazy dictator, he's not at all. He's stepped in to help Argentina and Bulivia get free of their shackles, just because he can, and whilst he criticizes the US government, he speaks very highly of the American people. Argentina has had a real hard time, but through that shines some signs of real hope, here's something I found quite inspiring:
Argentina: Surviving without money
I guess greed is the thing that screws everything up. If we can find some way of cutting that out of peoples lives, we'd do just great! Still, lead by example, and even if you can't change the world, don't quit trying, and definitely don't join the other side, and try convince as many other people to do the same.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
You seem to forget that out of ALL the animals in the world humans are on top of the food chain. Your argument now has no basis on which to stand on. Have a nice day.
Why would a 'moral' being slaughter another being who suffers just as they do for no reason? Humans are supposedly 'intelligent', and they should start to show it.
I'm sure they would rather not exist if the sole purpose for their existence was to be given a cruel death for absolutely no reason, if they were able to comprehend that.
There's simply no need to do so. They would rather *not* be slaughtered, that much is certain. If they knew it was coming, they certainly would be afraid. There's simply no point in doing this unless it is absolutely needed (self defense, survival).
Living for a brief period before you're slaughtered sounds better than being free and living a normal life? I don't even want to know what your views on what actions the government should take are.
Yes, the alternative is leave them alone unless needed.
Unfortunately that's not how the world works until we can grow meat in a petri dish we will continue to slaughter animals. And hey look tat is humans beig smarter so we won't have to use live animals. It is human nature we are omnivores. If it wasn't for humans hunting animals we wouldn't be what we are today. Hell the reasons humans started spreading around the globe was by following the food, the migrating animals. And the fact is millions upon millions of cows sheep chickens and what not would never have a life at all its like asking an embryo if it would rather not be born and experience life or to be born be taken care of never having a care in the world but once they reached maturity they would be killed quickly and hardly any pain to serve an important need. You act like it isn't necessary but its the only cost effective way to feed billions hell your probably against fish farms too. Once you get a grip on reality and understand that eating meat is an ingrained part of human nature and human civilization and without becoming meat eaters you me everyone on /. would not exist.
"The correctness of other peoples actions is not a prerequisit for the correctness of one's own, thankfully you're only responsible for your own actions, and you do have the power to be part of it or not."
I know. I try not to buy products from large corporations whether or not lots of other people are doing so.
"But that's democracy for you"
Democracy is good, but this is just outright corruption. Something must be done sooner or later.
"Still, lead by example, and even if you can't change the world, don't quit trying, and definitely don't join the other side, and try convince as many other people to do the same."
I do.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"Unfortunately that's not how the world works"
I'm aware. I don't partake in these activities out of protest, and try to get others to do the same. It will change eventually, or humans will surely destroy themselves due to their own selfishness (and possibly destroy many other things, too, sadly).
"It is human nature we are omnivores"
We're also supposedly 'moral' and 'intelligent'. If either of those were true, we'd show self control and not pointlessly slaughter other beings for no other reason than to satisfy our taste buds when there are alternate food sources.
"Hell the reasons humans started spreading around the globe was by following the food, the migrating animals"
That doesn't mean that we should continue, and that doesn't mean that we should have started (again, only for survival or self defense).
"And the fact is millions upon millions of cows sheep chickens and what not would never have a life at all its like asking an embryo if it would rather not be born and experience life or to be born be taken care of never having a care in the world but once they reached maturity they would be killed quickly and hardly any pain to serve an important need"
You can't ask something that doesn't exist if they want to live. However, if it were possibly, and I was told that I was conceived for the sole purpose of being slaughtered by idiotic, selfish beings for absolutely no reason, I'd say that I'd rather not live.
"You act like it isn't necessary"
There's these things called "fruits," "plants," and "vegetables." If none of those are present, then fine, eat an animal (even a human, if you have to). But otherwise, don't.
"Once you get a grip on reality and understand that eating meat is an ingrained part of human nature"
You do realize that vegetarians exist, right? There are perfectly healthy vegetarian diets. It isn't something that we need to do (and something that we shouldn't do for no reason). If humans are truly unable to control their own actions because of simple-minded traditions (which is wrong because, as I said, vegetarians exist), then they aren't nearly as 'intelligent' as they claim to be (many of them, anyway).
"you me everyone on /. would not exist."
I don't eat meat, my friend. You don't need to eat meat to have offspring, either. Not eating meat and starving are two very, very different things.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
There most vegitarians are either sickly looking or have diets that are very expensive. Unless you eat tons of tofu or something else its hard to supplement the nutrition you get from meat. And as for moral and intelligent, Being moral is a completely worthless word. Morality to you is not to kill innocent animals morality to others is sacrificing animals to their god/s. Morality is completely in the eyes of the beholder. Our intelligence speaks for itself just look at the device you are typing on. The closest things animals have to inventions are a few tools and those usually are just common objects used as tools like a stick or rock. And it doesn't matter if you eat meat or not. B/c if your ancestors never ate meat there lives would have been completely different and the things that happened that had to happen for your existence to come into place never would have.
"There most vegitarians are either sickly looking or have diets that are very expensive."
Not really. You just have to know what to eat. Meat isn't magical.
"Being moral is a completely worthless word"
You have a point. However, my point was that this is what humans claim to be (many, anyway). I can't kill humans for food, but I can kill members of other species? What if I like human meat?
"Our intelligence speaks for itself just look at the device you are typing on"
It's neat, groundbreaking, etc. However, ultimately, these are merely toys. Humans will die and their existence will mean nothing. The same goes for everything else. Humans may have the ability to invent, but they don't have the ability to control themselves, or the ability to perceive the consequences of their actions.
"B/c if your ancestors never ate meat there lives would have been completely different and the things that happened that had to happen for your existence to come into place never would have."
However, they did eat meat. Those things did happen. There's no way to tell if these things wouldn't have happened in they didn't eat meat. Besides that, just because they ate meat, that doesn't make your arguments any more logical. There's simply no reason to kill another being (human or not) unless it's for survival or self defense. If humans don't recognize this, their own selfishness will surely bring about their demise.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Feel free to be part of the solution: Turn off your computer manufactured of materials that were strip-mined from the Earth, and is being powered by burning coal or oil; and never visit Slashdot again.
I wonder how many slashdotters looked at the subject line and traced the "parent" links all the way up looking for the original comment, only to find out that the "Re:" caused the last 3 characters to be truncated.
Eating is for survival. And as I pointed out that you failed to even comment on in order to eat an entirely meatless diet that has everything you need in it costs way too much for most people. And yes what we are typing on are merely toys and I think that's pretty good going from "Ooo fire hot" to we can travel to the moon in what 10,000 years? I mean just look at the advancements made in the last 200 years. I mean when have humans as a whole or even as a majority ever said its immoral to eat animals? I have never heard that except from a small % of the population. If the human race stopped eating meat we would starve. We can't even feed everyone on the planet right now with meat.
Apparently you don't understand what I mean. I love technology, but we need an alternate energy source. We've simply come too far to just abandon everything.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"Eating is for survival."
I've said time and time again that unless there is nothing else to eat *except* meat, there's no point in eating it. An intelligent being wouldn't mindlessly slaughter another being for no reason, unless they *have* to.
"And as I pointed out that you failed to even comment on in order to eat an entirely meatless diet that has everything you need in it costs way too much for most people."
Not really. There's cheap diets where you can still get your nutrition. Meat isn't exactly cheap, either. This would also a problem with our current capitalistic society.
"I mean when have humans as a whole or even as a majority ever said its immoral to eat animals?"
If everyone on earth said something incorrect, it would still be incorrect. What the majority says or thinks is irrelevant.
"If the human race stopped eating meat we would starve."
Have you read my comments at all? I said that *if someone is going to starve*, then that would be a reason to eat meat. If it's just to satisfy their taste buds (as it is in many cases in many countries), then there's no point.
"We can't even feed everyone on the planet right now with meat."
I think it would be best if that in vitro meat that you linked to was used, instead. As far as I read, there'd be no need to slaughter animals to make it or eat it.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Living for a brief period before you're slaughtered sounds better than being free and living a normal life? I don't even want to know what your views on what actions the government should take are.
You are ignoring the very real fact that living a "free and normal life" for animals is almost constant suffering. Unless you are a apex predator life is very scary, even if you are, you are cold in the winter, constantly hungry and you best hope you dont get sick or injured as its all over in a very nasty way.
The life they have on farms etc, it a lot better than this and the death they get at the end is better than almost any way you can die in the wild. Its nice and all to talk about "freedom and a normal life" but are you sure that is what they would want?
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
"You are ignoring the very real fact that living a "free and normal life" for animals is almost constant suffering."
The same thing goes for humans, yet we can't raise and slaughter them, even if we give them a 'happy' life up until they are slaughtered. They wouldn't have been born otherwise, so that makes it completely fine!
"Unless you are a apex predator life is very scary, even if you are, you are cold in the winter, constantly hungry and you best hope you dont get sick or injured as its all over in a very nasty way."
Humans have a very difficult life, as well. You have to work for money, and sometimes there's no jobs available. There might not even be food available in some areas or countries! Maybe not even water. Would I prefer to be fed? Yes. Would I prefer to be fed if I'd just be slaughtered later? No.
"The life they have on farms etc, it a lot better than this and the death they get at the end is better than almost any way you can die in the wild. Its nice and all to talk about "freedom and a normal life" but are you sure that is what they would want?"
Would you want to be raised on a farm for the sole purpose of being slaughtered later? Or is that not okay just because we're humans?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Humans have a very difficult life, as well. You have to work for money, and sometimes there's no jobs available. There might not even be food available in some areas or countries! Maybe not even water. Would I prefer to be fed? Yes. Would I prefer to be fed if I'd just be slaughtered later? No.
That's fine, but are you sure others share your opinion? Do you think you would manage to keep that opinion while starving? What about those in the 3rd world who take jobs they know are going to kill them through poisons / poor safety etc. just so they can survive / feed their family etc. If they took that option would it not be too far to argue that faced with what I outlined they would take that choice? After all, desperation has driven people to do all sorts of things.
Would you want to be raised on a farm for the sole purpose of being slaughtered later? Or is that not okay just because we're humans?
My key point (whether you think its valid or not) is that this is not a choice in isolation, it is an alternative to what would be conceivably be their "normal life". What I am saying is that animals face such desperate conditions in their normal life that it might actually make this choice the more "moral" choice of the two.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
"Do you think you would manage to keep that opinion while starving?"
If I took my chances, at least I'd have a chance at long term survival, whereas if I went with them to be fed, I'd be slaughtered for sure.
"What about those in the 3rd world who take jobs they know are going to kill them through poisons / poor safety etc. just so they can survive / feed their family etc."
Ignorance, possibly? Oh, and, those people *choose* this. Are members of other species asked for their opinion (no, they can't be, but we know that they don't like being slaughtered).
"After all, desperation has driven people to do all sorts of things."
Certain people.
"My key point (whether you think its valid or not) is that this is not a choice in isolation"
It's not a choice at all.
" it is an alternative to what would be conceivably be their "normal life"."
The same would go for humans.
"What I am saying is that animals face such desperate conditions in their normal life that it might actually make this choice the more "moral" choice of the two."
You're right! When do we start making the human farms?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"I've said time and time again that unless there is nothing else to eat *except* meat, there's no point in eating it. An intelligent being wouldn't mindlessly slaughter another being for no reason, unless they *have* to."
See your not understanding. Even with eating both meat and veggies/fruits we do not have enough to go around. So if you take meat out of the equation we would just have more people starving to death. In other words we are already at the point that we have to eat meat to keep people from dying. We don't eat meat just for the fun of it but to survive.
"Not really. There's cheap diets where you can still get your nutrition. Meat isn't exactly cheap, either. This would also a problem with our current capitalistic society."
Unfortunately we have to have a capitalistic society until we reach a point where there is enough of all basic needs to let all people live comfortably. So as soon as someone invents a Star Trek like replicator there will always be people on top and people on the bottom. Those kind of Marxist utopias cannot exist until everyone can live happy healthy lives.
"If everyone on earth said something incorrect, it would still be incorrect. What the majority says or thinks is irrelevant."
All that does is point out that you think your way is the right way no matter what. Your claiming the only way to be moral or intelligent is to stop eating meat. The fact is your views are totally skewed. Morality has nothing to do with eating food even if it is animals, but morality does have to do with the way the animal is treated when slaughtered. Over the years the quality of life the animals get and the way they are slaughtered has reflected our morals. And as far as intelligence goes we have used generations of breeding techniques and plenty of genetic science to make the animals larger and produce more so less need to be slaughtered hell we have used that to grow bigger better fruits and veggies that can stand up to disease and pests better.
"Have you read my comments at all? I said that *if someone is going to starve*, then that would be a reason to eat meat. If it's just to satisfy their taste buds (as it is in many cases in many countries), then there's no point."
Do you not understand they many humans die already from starvation and getting rid of meat will only further hunger?
"I think it would be best if that in vitro meat that you linked to was used, instead. As far as I read, there'd be no need to slaughter animals to make it or eat it."
That is still only done in the lab but you don't seem to understand that breakthroughs in science takes years to become commercial.
"See your not understanding. Even with eating both meat and veggies/fruits we do not have enough to go around. So if you take meat out of the equation we would just have more people starving to death. In other words we are already at the point that we have to eat meat to keep people from dying. We don't eat meat just for the fun of it but to survive."
You're not understanding me. Plants can easily be grown, and at least in countries such as the US, seem to be abundant, as well. Many people overeat and consume more than they need to, as well. They have no reason to eat meat. Also, this is the fault of the human race. More specifically, overpopulation. If these idiots didn't decide to have babies 'naturally' all the time instead of adopting, this wouldn't be such a problem. I wonder how much effort is actually going into in vitro meat.
"Unfortunately we have to have a capitalistic society until we reach a point where there is enough of all basic needs to let all people live comfortably."
Not necessarily. Money only WORSENS scarcity. If you don't have enough money, you can't have more resources, even if they exist.
"Those kind of Marxist utopias cannot exist until everyone can live happy healthy lives."
No one claims to know of an idea to make society 'perfect'. No one claims that a society without money would mean that absolutely no one suffers. It would merely eliminate the people who thrive off of making other people suffer (large corporations, etc). As such, governmental corruption would be reduced as well (if implemented correctly).
Here's the system that I'm talking about: http://thevenusproject.com/
No one claims to be perfect. That is a common misconception when people consider these systems.
"All that does is point out that you think your way is the right way no matter what."
I don't think that.
"Your claiming the only way to be moral or intelligent is to stop eating meat."
Ha. I never claimed to be 'moral' myself, I'm far from that. That is a term that illogical idiots invented to describe 'good' humans. Personally, if I knew that the human race would soon be eliminated with nothing else on the planet going with it, I wouldn't be too sad. They cause far too much destruction for their own good, or for the good of anything else on the planet.
"but morality does have to do with the way the animal is treated when slaughtered."
Not really. Morality has little to do with anything. That is just what some people claim to be, you obviously not being one of them. Odd though how even if I was starving, I couldn't slaughter and eat a human. They are animals, after all. It's survival!
"Do you not understand they many humans die already from starvation and getting rid of meat will only further hunger?"
Do you not understand that that's what I meant the entire time? If someone is starving, I believe that eating meat would be fine in that case, even if that meat came from a human. I never said otherwise.
"That is still only done in the lab but you don't seem to understand that breakthroughs in science takes years to become commercial."
No, I understand it perfectly. I merely said that I think it would be best if it was used in the future.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You might not have claimed to be moral but you have said all of this:
"Yet, humans claim to be moral and intelligent. If that was true, they'd realize that members of other species needn't be slaughtered for such selfish reasons other than actual survival (which doesn't happen often, as there's usually other kinds of food)."
"Why would a 'moral' being slaughter another being who suffers just as they do for no reason? Humans are supposedly 'intelligent', and they should start to show it."
"We're also supposedly 'moral' and 'intelligent'. If either of those were true, we'd show self control and not pointlessly slaughter other beings for no other reason than to satisfy our taste buds when there are alternate food sources"
"I've said time and time again that unless there is nothing else to eat *except* meat, there's no point in eating it. An intelligent being wouldn't mindlessly slaughter another being for no reason, unless they *have* to."
I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that we can't go meatless. To do that would involve moving everyone that lives on fertile land to someplace desolate to use that land to grow plants on, we are talking about displacing billions of people. Also what humans claim to be doesn't mean shit. You can claim to be holy, you can claim to be straight you can claim anything you want and it doesn't mean anything, hell I'm an 8foot tall purple bird. Plus even if people claim they are moral or intelligent they are doing it by their definition you can't just come by and say you can't be that b/c if you were you wouldn't eat meat. An even bigger point is you say an intelligent species wouldn't slaughter lower animals for food? Why the hell not if its an efficient way to get the nutrition you need? I mean seriously I'm 1000 pound steer will give you about 750lbs of edible meat which if that was all a person ate would keep them fed I don't know 1 1/2 years. Assuming they ate 1Lb a day. How much land would it take to grow enough wheat or potatoes to do that? It really doesn't matter because you are on such a moral high horse you can't see past the fog you surround yourself with to see the facts which are without meat we would starve which when we started starving then to you it would be ok to eat meat until we are not starving anymore and new crops have grown in which case the cycle would then just repeat itself so how about we skip the starving part and just have a system to make sure the animals do not suffer for for what they give us.
It's interesting that there's a gene specifically limiting genes. I always thought of having limited mental capacities to be a gift. Too much thinking/too many memories can lead to brooding too much and depression (see link below). Not thinking allows people to just do things they are told to do, without questioning them - hence sometimes being more effective at what they do than others. A good example of that would be the average Slashdotter's luck with the women!
I'm not sure how what I'm saying applies to mice, considering I don't know to what extent solving mazes is important to them in nature and all - but that would be thinking too much for today. I have some very interesting company software load testing to go work on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/science-environment-11340881.
I don't really consider "toning it down" to actually be dumbing yourself down. Speaking in a manner that isn't a pretentious a-hole is like speaking another language.
I learned to "dumb it down" decades ago, but I don't think that using correct terminology is being pretentious or shitting on those who can't.
Wow, someone really feels bad about being inferior to the geeks around here, lots of unwarranted downmods.
You can't take the sky from me...
You seem to forget that out of ALL the animals in the world humans are on top of the food chain. Your argument now has no basis on which to stand on. Have a nice day.
You seem to forget that this thread started with "All humans have managed to do is delude themselves into believing that they are superior to every other species on the planet". Your argument is based only on your own smug sense of unwarranted superiority. I hope you get herpes.
You can't take the sky from me...
"You might not have claimed to be moral but you have said all of this:"
You're misunderstanding me time and time again. All of that was said because humans usually consider themselves 'moral' and 'intelligent', and I merely said that if that was true, it seems to me that they wouldn't do such pointless things.
"I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that we can't go meatless."
I don't know how hard it is for you to understand that vegetarians exist and that if there is no other food available, like in the situations you describe, I have no problem with eating meat. The only time that I'm opposed to it is if there is an abundance of other food available and there's no need to slaughter another animal (even a human). I've been saying this the entire time.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"All of that was said because humans usually consider themselves 'moral' and 'intelligent', and I merely said that if that was true, it seems to me that they wouldn't do such pointless things."
You still don't show explain how eating meat makes humans less intelligent than they claim to be. You show no facts only your opinion.
"I don't know how hard it is for you to understand that vegetarians exist and that if there is no other food available, like in the situations you describe, I have no problem with eating meat. The only time that I'm opposed to it is if there is an abundance of other food available and there's no need to slaughter another animal (even a human). I've been saying this the entire time."
There isn't an over abundance of food right now. Even with all the meat that is ate there still isn't enough to go around. If there was everyone would be fed there would be no starving children in Africa. What are you proposing we start the year eating only fruits and veggies then 6-8 months in when all of that is gone we switch to eating only meat (since all the other stuff would be gone)
Its only delusional if it were not true. Humans do not think they are the fastest or strongest but the most intelligent and most lethal(when using our intelligence.) In fact the human species is the only one to expand to all 7 continents plus the oceans and even space. We are the only species that can craft our planet into what we want it to be (for better or worst) now I don't mean that we have control over nature but if humans want to live on a mountain side we carve the rock and make homes. If we want to explore the oceans we build crafts to let us. The surface of this planet has become our domain b/c of our superior intelligence. The fact is when we are gone our legacy will be far seen for millenia. Future sentient being will be finding our artifacts our art our inventions. The most any other animal will leave behind is some fossils and crude oil. You might not like it but its humans that are on top. For a long time it was a leisurely sport to go out to the jungles, savannas, plains, where ever and kill the biggest baddest thing living in themjust for fun. If we decide we don't like a large species or that it is getting in the way we destroy them its not pretty but its a fact. You don't even try to argue how humans are not the top predator instead you make factless claims that we are delusional in our way of thinking instead you say my argument is based on smugness when you are the smug one pointing your nose up at your own species. You are the one putting humans higher than animals by giving us different rules to live by. Its ok for a fox to sneak in a hen house for an easy meal but not ok for humans to have the hen house b/c somewhere down the line we stopped being animals and became something different with different rules in your eyes, something that needs to live up to some arbitrary standard in your head. Before you start saying that I'm acting superior to anything look at yourself. You have said many times that humans lack morality and intelligences for "slaughtering animals to satisfy their taste buds" and since you obviously are a vegetarian that makes you smarter and more moral then those who enjoy eating meat ie most people.
"You still don't show explain how eating meat makes humans less intelligent than they claim to be. You show no facts only your opinion."
"it seems to me"
It seems to me that if they were truly moral or intelligent that they'd be able to at least control themselves by not slaughtering another being (humans included) unless needed. Aren't we supposed to be above that? Or, at least, some people claim that we are.
"There isn't an over abundance of food right now."
Yeah, you haven't understood anything I've said. I'm aware of that. I've been aware. I merely said that if there is an over abundance of other food, that there's no point in eating meat and slaughtering animals.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
In fact the human species is the only one to expand to all 7 continents plus the oceans and even space.
Bacteria did it long before us.
And amongst the many many things you're wrong about is the amount of meat I had this week (a LOT, wow was I ever full). Don't you ever tire of being wrong? Don't you think it would be less tiring to just shut the fuck up already?
You can't take the sky from me...
I understand everything you say. Unfortunately its all contradicting to itself. We shouldn't eat meat unless needed. I point out even with meat people still starve making it a necessity right now and in the past. Your entire "humans claim to be moral and intelligent. If that was true, they'd realize that members of other species needn't be slaughtered for such selfish reasons other than actual survival" is void. Humans have been eating meat to survive. Sure some eat meat in regions that have a lot of fruits and stuff but whatever they don't eat will usually get shipped off to another place that doesn't have that. That's why living in Ohio I can eat a banana. So humans call themselves moral and intelligent b/c they eat meat to keep members of there species from dying. That is a smart and moral thing to do (the way we do it today with sustained livestock and humane treatment). And don't go trying to say that you said if there is an overabundance of food with your first post containing: "All humans have managed to do is delude themselves into believing that they are superior to every other species on the planet so that they can slaughter innocent animals in order to satisfy their taste buds" Right there you accuse humans of doing it to only satisfy their tastebuds which means you somehow think/thought just the plants we have could sustain us.
Ok going down to singled cell organisms is quite a reach. If you eat meat your just a damn hypocrite. Now it there was anything wrong with my post please enlighten me.
"I point out even with meat people still starve making it a necessity right now and in the past."
Ugh. Come on, now. I've said numerous times that if this is the case, I don't personally have a problem with people eating meat.
"Humans have been eating meat to survive."
It's not void. I've seen people that believe that slaughtering animals for no other reason than to satisfy their taste buds is okay, and go on to claim that humans are 'moral' and 'intelligent', even though that person just proved how they can't even control themselves in the face of desire, even if it means harming another being. I'm aware that people starve today.
"So humans call themselves moral and intelligent b/c they eat meat to keep members of there species from dying."
I'd eat a human to survive.
"That is a smart and moral thing to do (the way we do it today with sustained livestock and humane treatment)"
See, I don't know about that. Not always are animals treated properly before they die. Need better regulations on that.
Besides that, I'm also heavily against skinning animals for their fur, and yet for some reason, it not only legal to do that, but also acceptable to wear the fur. What's the point of this? You don't need animal fur to make coats anymore, we know of plenty of alternate materials that do just as well, if not better.
"And don't go trying to say that you said if there is an overabundance of food with your first post containing"
You merely misunderstood me. I was clearly talking about the people who think that way (I've seen them).
"Right there you accuse humans of doing it to only satisfy their tastebuds which means you somehow think/thought just the plants we have could sustain us."
No, I accused people who think that way of doing that if there were an overabundance of foods besides meat.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I have bad news about your husband. Have you ever heard of Nimh?
Just curious. What does it do?
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!