Slashdot Mirror
Meet the Scientist Who Injected Himself With 3.5 Million-Year-Old Bacteria (vice.com)
Press2ToContinue writes with this profile of Anatoli Brouchkov, a scientist who isn't afraid to take an extremely hands-on approach to science. Vice reports: "Anatoli Brouchkov is a soft-spoken guy with silver hair, and when he lets out a reserved chuckle, his eyes light up like he was belly laughing. If you met him on the street, you'd never guess that he once injected himself with a 3.5 million-year-old strain of bacteria, just to see what would happen. According to Brouchkov, Bacillus F has a mechanism that has enabled it to survive for so long beneath the ice, and that the same mechanism could be used to extend human life, too—perhaps, one day, forever. In tests, Brouchkov says the bacteria allowed female mice to reproduce at ages far older than typical mice. Fruit flies, he told the Siberian Times, also experienced a 'positive impact' from exposure to the bacteria."
According to Brouchkov, Bacillus F has a mechanism that has enabled it to survive for so long beneath the ice, and that the same mechanism could be used to extend human life, too—perhaps, one day, forever.
Nutter.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
...you can't live forever, unless you're frozen in ice.
Sounds like it's gonna make a good Marvel comics.
Russian roulette, vodka, communism, zombie bacteria, Vladimir Putin -- Russians really know how to take risks.
Sure, injecting onself with bacteria sounds like a nice plot for a Marvel movie, and it makes great headlines.
But, while this is a brave act, it's incredibly stupid and statistically insignificant. What was he trying to achieve here?
This move wasn't much more than a PR stunt.
> If you met him on the street, you'd never guess that he once injected himself with a 3.5 million-year-old strain of bacteria...
Well, I wouldn't guess this for anybody.
I call bullshit. How could an extremophile that's highly adapted for cold temperatures not only survive in the elevated temperature of a mammal body, not only evade the mammal adaptive immune system that is so effective diseases have to be highly specialised to defeat it, not only have any kind of physiological effect, but a positive one too?
who ate food made with 14 billion year old atoms.
I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further - there is none except our need to keep alive and for some to reproduce as much as the available vaginas hold.
Fuck dude, stay away from razorblades and balconies on tall buildings.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
To disguise the fact that the rest of it is inconsequential shit...
Similar to Sirius Cybernetics Corp products - their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.
Found the mopey goth teen who can't get laid.
I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further
That is what all life does. Why should we be any different?
And why do you think it needs to have a purpose? It simply is.
No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't? Although I agree that congenital disorders should be
Why you should ? For two reasons: 1) You, too, may become the victim of a gruesome disease or a bad accident 2)Because it is a moral thing, for the stronger, to help the weaker.
the NRA - Like it or not, there are too many guns in the USA to get rid of them. Of you try, the police and criminals will be the only ones with guns, and that's certainly not a good thing. Also, the NRA's existence means we have great freedom of speech laws, unlike Europe, which is going the PC censorship route
This is a classic argument against change: "Proposed change is not perfect, so let's rather do nothing". Moreover, here in Europe, with strict gun regulation, indeed only "police and criminals" have guns, and we have no school shootings. As for the NRA's existence guaranteeing "great freedom of speech", I won't even bend over the edge of such bottomless stupidity in order to try and see a rational argument there.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Anatoli Brouchkov is a soft-spoken guy with silver hair, and when he lets out a reserved chuckle, his eyes light up like he was belly laughing.
Why are we focusing on inconsequential shit?
because its like the cannibal who lives next door that no one suspected.... You don't expect a mild-mannered reporter to be Superman and you don't expect a soft spoken well educated affable scientist to be that nuts... Its inconsequential but relevant to our own wonder at why the hell would he take that step/risk.
No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't? Although I agree that congenital disorders should be
Because you're a moral person?
Or you believe in a religion that says you should care for those less fortunate then you?
Or you are completely self-interest driven and are so full of yourself to be sure sure bad things can't happen to you but would prefer not to be mugged for money by someone who happens to be less lucky then you and is willing to risk his life to get enough cash to pay for his treatment?
Or because you believe in living longer. Here's a link to look at: http://theincidentaleconomist.... - spoiler alert: The US spends the most in health care and gets a life expectancy equivalent to Czechoslovakia.
One of those reasons?
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
There can be only one.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
but how did he manage to inject exactly 3.5 of them?
Low population growth typically indicates an educated populace, low infant mortality, and a high cost to rear children because of a high cost of living caused by a luxury economy.
Long term survival of the species.
sugar in nearly all processed foods - Yes, but who's forcing you to buy processed foods? Vote with your wallet and don't buy processed foods. Simple.
I really hate this argument. Like the only option is to 'not buy processed foods' right. How about speaking up about the unhealthy stranglehold the American Sugar Industry has?
You know, the same Sugar Industry that lobbied against introducing a 10% hard limit to added sugar, which is a standard worldwide. Or more recently, lobbied hard against placing a limit on the size of drinks. Hell, they're big enough and powerful enough to keep keep foreign competitors at bay, when other industries are opening the doors to foreign competition.
It's really nothing. I do experiments like this all the time just eating the crap in my refrigerator.
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
and paying for people's risky or chosen behaviours, like smoking
Which generates more tax revenue than it costs in healthcare
obesity related diseases
Which in some cases are out of people's control because :
injuries from sports
So you're against lack of fitness because its a burden on the system, but you're against fitness because it's a burden on the system? You just won the stupidest comment on the internet of the day award.
pregnancy or sex related disorders
*blank stare*
and so on
Oh no no no. Please go on. This through process you're following is truly amazing. Though the level of logic you're applying may be suggestive of some kind of brain defect. It's a shame you don't have socialised healthcare, otherwise you could get it checked out for free.
Can't he just rub his penis just to see what would happen, like everybody else?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If you buy in to universal health care, it is not up to the individual to decide what the health insurance shall cover. That is a political process (at least here in Europe), and hence such discussions are made by elected representatives, with support by experts. Your argument is does not take into account the collective good, only your ( (mis-)perceived ) personal benefit.
As to guns, you make another classic stance against improvement, be it tiny: "Won't work, can't work". Really ? Did you try it, in your district / county / state ? Look at the Australians - it DID work there. Look at us in Europe. And worry about it ? I would, if the children of my fellow citizens were regularly killed by such a totally preventable stupidity. Even if I have (chosen to have) no children. You are a part of the larger whole you live in, after all.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
That is diversion of attention from the main topic of discussion (gun control). You don't even address the point made. As rhetorically effective as a filibuster.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
We must be in trouble because the last time I viewed a video on human reproduction, the males were trying to reproduce in all the holes of the female.
I'm not slightly medically knowledgeable, but I'm wondering if this guy thought through that he could have infected the rest of us from stuff our bodies had no defenses? Like smallpox and the indigenous tribes in the Americas. I'm fine with him killing himself in the name of science (think Curie), but this strikes me as a little too cowboy.
Here you are. As an intelligent person, you'll certainly not fail to notice that, after most Central- and South American countries, the USA tops the list - by far.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Plus injecting yourself with 3.5 billion year old bacteria "just to see what happens" is not how you do real science since the only thing you will learn is whether this species of bacteria is dangerous to humans. He seems to have mistaken a Marvel comic for a science textbook.
There's a difference between universal health care for congenital disorders (which I said I supported, although I left out a word) and paying for people's risky or chosen behaviours,
This is where your whole segregation falls down, as your own list is pretty bad at idetifying bad behaviour.
like smoking or obesity related diseases,
This is where you're on safest ground, but where do you draw the line, and how are you determining that a disease was caused by smoking or obesity. Lung cancer is also caused by air pollution. Diabetes can be hereditary.
injuries from sports,
Sport that people play to stay healthy. Yes there is risk of injury but most agree that the risk is outweighed by the general health benefits.
pregnancy
You better hope that other people have children or your whole society will fall down, the aged population is supported by the working adults. Their children will be supporting your pension so to decide that you have no responsibility to them now when you can is pretty short sighted.
or sex related disorders, and so on.
Sex is a luxury?
The cause of illness is notoriously hard to determine.
Actually I very much doubt that since almost all the elements above helium and up to iron were formed in the hearts of stars and so are a lot younger than the Big Bang. For the trace elements above iron in your food we actually have evidence that they were created in a supernova about 6 billion years ago. So other than the hydrogen, which makes up only a tiny proportion of your food by weight, most of the atoms are likely to be considerably younger than 14 billion years and formed in the hearts of stars not in the Big Bang.
I don't know what religions you're familiar with, but Christianity teaches that charity means giving of oneself, not using government to be Robin Hood.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Because the Goddamn Santa injected himself with ancient bacteria in order to infect us all by his chimney antics!
you could help solve the problem. Don't breed. And if you're really ambitious you know very well how to help the situation: stop eating and drinking.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
It won't work because too many people think that the 2nd Amendment is a good idea; that when we formed a government we did not give up the right to self-defense. Outlawing guns won't work for the simple reason that such laws will not pass.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Low population growth typically indicates an educated populace, low infant mortality, and a high cost to rear children because of a high cost of living caused by a luxury economy.
More like population density without resource constraints.
In mice, and other animals who don't have either the means nor the motive to rationally plan their families.
Humans have rather different dynamics, and the GP's statement is correct. It's very easy to show that as infant mortality declines and wealth rises, parents choose to have fewer children and invest much more in them. This is why the first world is already at negative population growth. In some parts of northern Europe the population decline is becoming a problem, to the degree that, for example, the Danish government has been running an advertising campaign to encourage people to have children.
The population of the US would be shrinking, but immigration is keeping it growing by about 2M people per year. There are only about 1M immigrants per year, but first-generation immigrants tend to have larger families which props up the birth rate. However, the net growth rate is declining and assuming current trends remain unchanged the US will hit zero growth in about 30 years and then population will begin to decrease. The assumption that current trends continue is a pretty big one though, given the massive changes we have coming in that time frame, as automation increases dramatically. Climate change may have some effect as well.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
what if that thing turns out to be contagious? (oh wait, if we also make a vaccin, then $$$)
I've thought that more than once - "the Americans are in a dead-end street with their 2nd amendment, and it would take amazing political courage and willpower to change that..."
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
There should be two tiers of healthcare. One is what the government funds, which should be things that a person couldn't reasonably prevent, congenital/genetic disorders mostly, or diseases with unknown causes. For other things, people should be allowed to choose whether they want coverage or to take the risk, and insurance companies certainly should be able to choose to deny people with risky lifestyles (smokers, people who partake in extreme sports, etc.) That's a lifestyle choice, and it should not be supported by those who choose to take care of themselves by avoiding these things (as well as exercise frequently and eat well).
That is what we have in Europe **grin** sou you are implicitly conceding a point you were opposed to earlier in this discussion. You do make, however, an important conceptual error. "The government" does not fund healthcare - it is the citizens themselves who fund healthcare, with their own contributions. The state, at the utmost, fills up the deficit, should one arise. But then again, you seem not to realize that "the state" is not an entity outside of yourself. You yourself are a part of the state.
As to to guns and Australia, Australia is not an island. It is a continent which happens to be one and only one country, relying heavily upon foreign trade. And your "Mexican border" argument does not hold, as it contradicts your earlier argument that "there are simply so many guns inside of the USA. You can't blame on "the Mexicans" or "the drug smugglers" what you, in your own country, fail to control, it being already there: guns.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Never, NEVER forget the impact that the instincts have on the general behavior of the population. Everyone thinks that human beings are rational but in reality people are an entity 50% rationality 50% instinct, with variations in this proportion from one individual to another.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't?
You will remember this one when you have an accident and have to go through a complex and really expensive surgery... My country is a general third-world shithole, but here anyone that have an accident like the one I have described will not be left to die on the hospital door because he could not pay.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
As long as I mostly remember my past and still capable of what I was in the past, i totally don't care about my genetic make-up.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
"Found the mopey goth teen who can't get laid"
Someone needs to introduce the Goths to the "I want to die" emo kids. Would be fulfilling for both.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Never, NEVER forget the impact that the instincts have on the general behavior of the population. Everyone thinks that human beings are rational but in reality people are an entity 50% rationality 50% instinct, with variations in this proportion from one individual to another.
And yet, what is actually happening in real human populations follows the patterns I described, not the ones that develop in lab mice.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No thanks. I'll pass.
Table-ized A.I.
If it gives him massive diarrhea...that would not be an inconsequential shit.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Is "it" the infection caused by the bacteria, or the condition of being stupid enough to inject oneself?
Table-ized A.I.
Mod Parent up.
Consider China - they panicked about population growth, instituted draconian controls (the one child policy), and look where it's gotten them - into the same boat with Japan and South Korea, the latter of whose birth rate is so low that if it continued at that rate, the entire population of some 50 million people would dwindle to nothing by 2700. Granted, it's unlikely to go quite that far, but it's worth noting that the effects on the population are significant even in the short term, as the number of aged (ie non-working) people increase as a percentage of the population.
What's more, even less advanced nations are seeing this effect. Mexico had a birth rate of something like 6-7 children per female in 1970, but today that's only 2.2. Even India is down to 2.5 and falling.
Ouch - that's pretty bad then, since Czechoslovakia no longer exists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm with you, both are stupid stunts with little scientific value. However, a manned mission to Mars would spur on development of technology which is likely to be of some value here on earth and have very little potential for worldwide risk. Injecting oneself with some old strain of bacteria, risking your life and the lives of others should it prove to be contagious and fatal was very STUPID.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Not to mention that obese people generally cost the healthcare system less, as they're (relatively) more likely to die at 60 from a heart attack than 90 from a long protracted battle with cancer.
And you're gonna die someday (long before the Universe ends), so what's the point of living? Yet, here you are. Let's just try to have a good time while we can, though some personal sacrifice is necessary for the benefit of a society in totality, so don't get too hedonistic.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
He already got his Nobel prize... Hadn't done a blessed thing beyond being elected and still got the Peace Prize...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further - there is none except our need to keep alive and for some to reproduce as much as the available vaginas hold.
Agent Smith, is that you?
I presume that you are yet another north-american who does not read before answering. As I said in part that you went over, the average is 50/50 between rationality and instinct, not 100% instinct as your binary interpreter understood. What I meant - and your interpreter also ignored or failed to process - is that you can not assume that humans would be 100% rationality. And I can put up too the disturbing detail of how the behavior of rats of the experience are similar to the behavior of actual human social groups when you look at the whole, or you already forgotten what others have learned in the decline of the Japanese population?
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
"That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works."
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Morality is fine as long as it helps make the world a better place. When it doesn't as in this case, then it needs to be fixed.
There HAS to be something relevant on Emotion Eric, surely?
- Dan
Why you should ? For two reasons: 1) You, too, may become the victim of a gruesome disease or a bad accident
When my time comes, my time comes. Simple as that - And the sooner modern society comes to accept that as a healthy attitude, the better we'll all do.
2)Because it is a moral thing, for the stronger, to help the weaker.
In order to make the strong care about the weak, you need to structure programs like universal healthcare to really offer universal healthcare. Oh, so tens of millions more Americans have insurance thanks to government subsidies now - Yet my non-subsidized health insurance rates still go up 10+% per year? Fuck the weak! I support universal healthcare. Universal. Not "The middle class pays for everyone (except the 1% who don't care either way)".
OK, your reply was funnier than mine...
What you ignored was that I never claimed 100% rationality. I just described what humans in large groups actually do, based on easily-observed, thoroughly-measured and extensively-documented real-world statistics.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
A new Marvel Superhero in the make. Now we just need a name.
What makes you think we don't have sensible gun legislation? What legislation would you have in place that we don't have now? How will legislation stop criminals and terrorists getting weapons? Does legislation prevent people from buying dr*gs?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Wait, what? You want the government to tell you what you can and can not buy for food? How about we skip that silliness and just, you know, teach people to eat healthy along with a bunch of other things we fail to teach? Why run around trying to limit liberties, masking the problem, instead of working on the root cause which is that people aren't terribly bright and some need to be taught things that seem otherwise simple to the rest of us?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
That doesn't happen in the US. Any hospital that accepts any funding from the government (pretty much all of them except for some private hospitals that you can't afford to go to) can not refuse critical/emergency care treatment. You'll still be billed, go bankrupt, and be otherwise ruined but they don't just let you die.
And, in case you're daft, I'm not saying that the American health-care system is ideal. I'm a strong proponent for single-payer health-care. I am saying that the situation that you describe is technically possible but rather unlikely - to the point where it's just not something to be concerned about. If you're in an accident and it is an emergency they'll fix you up...
Then they bill the hell out of you, your family, and sue your dog but you'll get treated. You won't get a heart transplant or something like that but they'll patch you up if you're in an accident. You'll just be paying for it until you die from some other cause. (My daughter is a pediatrician that works in an emergency trauma unit. They don't even ask for an insurance card before they start treating emergency cases.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Even though you're right, a declining population is actually a 'good thing' overall except where you have a population expecting handouts from their government. The problem in European countries is that they don't have enough tax paying people to support the tax-based retirement establishment. Immigrants don't help much because the first few generations also rely on the taxes for their support and pay very little taxes in return and then they go on to mimic the natives in population growth when they do get richer.
One of the reasons I came to the US was because there was very little tax to support others, you make it your own way, invest in your own retirement etc. however that's being quickly undone by a growing generation of people expecting handouts.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You seem to associate the private possession (and use) of firearms with freedom. How... odd.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
I don't know what religions you're familiar with, but Christianity teaches that charity means giving of oneself, not using government to be Robin Hood.
Whether it's the church or government, once the scale of giving gets large enough you need a middle man to manage it. History has shown us that the govt works better than a church at this function.
You're right. I do. I consider owning property an essential liberty. I am free because I can own property. In fact, ownership of property is one of the cornerstones to freedom.
You may not like it or understand it but that's saying more about you than about me. I also own a house (three technically), some rental property, shares in a bunch of business, clothing, a bunch of books and computers, and a lot of cars. Oh, and I own property in two countries (soon to be three).
Some of the many things I own are firearms. Just because you're scared of them doesn't mean that I can't be trusted with them. The only things that have to worry about me and a firearm are bits of paper and an animal that I think is going to be tasty.
However, I mostly posted 'cause I saw you debating with the other guy and, frankly, they were not putting up a nearly valid defense. You can't just win a debate with that guy and say, "I won! I'm right!" No... LOL No! That's like beating up a toddler and then saying you're the boxing champion of the world.
Now, are you going to posit that ownership of property is not a cornerstone of freedom? You can say that you're scared of firearms and want them to be outlawed, that's okay to hold that belief. You can say that you want to be less free (having fewer liberties) if you want and that's a fine position to hold. However, when you enact legislation based on fear you end up with really bad laws.
Let's clarify some terms: Liberty, freedom, and rights. You are free to kill me. You do not have the liberty to do so. If you do, then they will take away your freedom and remove your right to bear arms.
If you want to be less fewer liberties then you can do so and that's a fine position for you to hold in your country. You can even hold that position in my country but nobody is going to listen to you. I do not want to be less free. I want as many liberties as I can reasonably have. I like math, do you like math?
In the United States, in 2013, your odds of being murdered with a firearm were ~35:1,000,000. The number of homicides (and other crimes and even gun violence) has been trending down for quite some time.
So, no... Basing legislation on fear is how you end up with governments trying to put a back door in encryption, the TSA, Homeland Security, excessively long prison sentences, watch lists, no-fly lists, and many other things. You can be less free while enjoying the illusion of security but you don't get to use your cowardice as a means to take away my liberties.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I was going to be polite, and answer you on your private email. However, after this reply, I'll do it in public. You merit it.
First as to my alleged cowardice. Although the insult doesn't hurt at all, I'm going to rectify this. I served for five years in the French Foreign Legion, in its toughest regiment: 2 REP ( 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment ), as légionnaire nr 173531.
I took part in operations in the desert in Chad, the Centrafrican Republic and on the Comores (where we kicked mercenary king Bob Denard from the islands).
Do we agree this settles the cowardice argument, and that I am very well to be trusted with a firearm ?
( After the Legion, I studied mathematics, and then got a second degree in software engineering, which is how I ended up on
Slashdot. )
Second as to freedom. You seem to define freedom as "the possibility to do whatever I wish". That is philosophically hardly defensible.
The best definition of freedom, IMHO, and one accepted by many philosophers and political thinkers, is:
"Freedom is the acceptance of necessity". As to liberties - these are guaranteed by laws, both by a country's constitution and
the laws based upon it. There is hardly any link between freedom and liberties, as legislation may grant you any liberty
( or take any liberty away from you ) without altering your freedom. Hegel said it more beautifully than I can:
"An individual may be free in spite of being in the bonds of iniquity". So - no, no and no: ownership of property is NOT a cornerstone of freedom.
The cornerstones of freedom are: a sane mind, education and at least a foundation of morals.
Third as to fear. I fail to see how European-style arms legislation is based upon fear. An average citizen of a European country is
not more afraid of firearms than an average US citizen is. There are shooting clubs, and if you absolutely want to possess a firearmd,
you can do so through a shooting club - iff you fulfil the legal requirements: you must be an adult without a criminal record and without
a history of psychological disorders. Want to hunt ? Idem ditto. And no, you will NOT be allowed ( at least not here in Austria ) to have
both your weapon AND ammunition at home. Why not ? Because of the possible consequences. We regularly read about children, even toddlers, in the US,
killing themselves or someone else because mommy or daddy committed the stupidity of having firearms AND ammunition in the house. Moreover,
we don't want you to kill e.g. a burglar. We want the burglar before a court. So no, firearms are not "outlawed" here: they are heavily
regulated. And a majority of Europeans see a country like the USA as a sort of hell, of which firearms are certainly a part.
Fourth, as to "bombing your entire civilization". That is a non-argument. Moreover, it is a diversion from the main topic of discussion, and hence irrelevant. Spoiler: I was born in 1967, and never took part in any world war. I AM, however, a staunch defender of the European Union, IMHO the greatest and largest-scale peace project ever launched ( and, up to today, a successful one, too ).
Fifth, and almost last, as to "everything has a cost". If you say that firearms are the cost of whatever, well you then undermine your own argument
by portraying them as something negative, whereas until now you glorified both firearms and your possession of them.
Sixth, and concluding, as to the attitude of many Americans towards firearms: it looks suspiciously like an addiction. Addicted persons
will say - and do !! - anything to both justify and maintain their use of the addictive substance. Addiction lowers a person's morals,
and I do, indeed, think that you are a person of addiction-induced questionable morality, albeit a rather intelligent one.
QED.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
That didn't seem impolite at all. I thought it quite polite and I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you said. I'll address them in turn.
1. No, that establishes nothing though it does indicate a high probability of competency - the Foreign Legion is a rather respectable outfit but your participation means naught except, perhaps, competency.
2. I not only didn't say such, nor did I imply such. I specifically stated the ownership of property. Not the use of said property to do "whatever I wish." Let's try for honesty.
3. Yeah, that's called fear. You're scared that someone will access your firearms and use them in an inappropriate manner. It's a justifiable fear and you can act on that how you wish with your country.
4. That's well and good that you didn't personally bomb yourself into rubble but your country did and that's why you end up being afraid of things that go boom. It can be summed up as a cultural difference - up to and including the propensity for warring with your neighbors.
5. It's not undermining my argument. It's accepting that there are risks associated with freedoms. The fewer the restrictions you have, the greater the risks. Again, I'm not scared so I accept those risks. I don't deny them. I accept them, knowingly and well aware of the potential consequences.
6. Addiction? Hmm... Would you say you're addicted to your hobbies? I don't fawn or or obsess over firearms. To me they are either a tool or a source of entertainment. I don't think the United States needs more firearm regulation. I think the United States needs to enforce the regulations that they already have. I don't *think* I'm addicted to firearms.
It's not even the greatest enumerated right, in my opinion. If I'm addicted to anything it is liberty - a concept you should understand seeing as you were in the Foreign Legion. I'd be just as pissed if someone were trying to take away freedom of the press, to be secure in one's papers, or even religion - and I'm not even a religious person.
Now, the caricature that you seem to think I am does, unfortunately, exist in my country but they're not the majority. Even us firearm aficionados call them "gun nuts" and they do more harm then good, but they've a right to be who they are. The vast majority of us are safe, secure, knowledgeable, law-abiding, and are extremely unlikely to go shoot up a school, murder someone, or even handle our firearms in an unsafe manner. Knee-jerk responses based on fear are never the solution. Enforce the laws we've got and accept that bad things happen to otherwise good people. That's the price you pay for liberties.
Oh, and allowed to own a firearm and keep it in your home but you can't keep ammunition? Dude... Just buy a big stick at that point. Enacting laws to protect stupid people from themselves just means that knowledgeable people are further restricted for no cause of their own.
I do appreciate that you didn't trot out the tired line of "your murder rate is 3x our rate!" True but three times a small number is still a very small number.
I don't expect we'll ever agree on the matter. I have used both logic and reason to come to my conclusions. I'm not sure how many people would have to die before I changed my views on the subject, to be honest. Ownership of property and the ability to defend oneself are essential freedoms in my opinion. They're not the only ones (though I'd say property ownership is the cornerstone) and, as I said, I'd be just as irked if someone were trying to erode the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or any other enumerated right.
And, ah, the irony... I spent eight years in the Marines and hold a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics. I actually wrote lots of software until I was able to afford to hire professionals to do it for me. My business was traffic modeling (vehicular and pedestrian) and I sold and retired some eight years ago. I'm a bit older than you, born in 1957. I am a horrible programmer. That's how I ended up on Slashdot.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I do agree we're not going to agree. Probably not before the Earth's magnetic field changes polarity. And even then. I do appreciate the conversation, however. It gives me (some) insight into how otherwise perfectly normal people can defend a stance considered inacceptable in my culture / place / state. Conversations of this caliber (pun intended) are rare on Slashdot. And yes - the similarity in backgrounds is a nice example of the kind of irony one will only find in real life, not in a novel.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Thanks and I enjoyed it as well. I think I understand your perspective but I simply can't agree with it - I've a different set of priorities. It would not be remiss for me to say, "Freedom at *almost* any cost." The person you were originally approaching is, well, probably not qualified to give a sound rebuttal based on logic and reason. In short, you were tearing them up and I just couldn't let that happen. Mostly, I couldn't let that happen because I figured you deserved a real, rational, and viable response.
Anyhow, much kudos for the Foreign Legion. You guys are rather tough. I seem to recall that your basic training is a full year and that becoming fluent in French is mandatory as well as all-weather training. I don't know much about your particular outfit (maybe Cambodia???) but I've read up on the Legion's history. I'm just not fluent in it as it was not a scholarly pursuit but an exercise in entertainment. My father, also a Marine, was stationed in Morocco on an old French base. I'm forgetting the details but I seem to recall the Legion had some action there and in the French Algiers. Possibly against the Boors but my memory is rather fuzzy.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You have failed the Agent K test.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Wrong. His argument is that the change makes things worse.
The argument that I should buy insurance because something might go wrong can be based on a number of falsehoods: misuse of statistics, failure to understand how insurance companies make money, ignorance of morality, and others. The morality issue is particularly galling: you assume that I am too cowardly to accept the risk for my own actions; you assume that an industry pandering to cowardice (the insurance industry) can be moral.
.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Payment through the government of other people's medical expenses does not involve giving, it involves legalized theft.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Charitable giving does not require centralization.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Payment through the government of other people's medical expenses does not involve giving, it involves legalized theft.
Oh boohoo, if you don't like it, try living in Somalia or Afghanistan and see how much better no govt works out for you...
Once you get to country sized populations it does. You could easily disprove this with one or two examples where millions of people have performed co-ordinated charitable acts without a central administration, but since there are none, let's just agree to disagree.