Actually that is the same protein or similar to the Plague resistant protein. I saw where some researchers believe that those people whose ancestors carried immunity to the plague had increased resistance to HIV. So yes, we may soon see populations decimated by HIV only to have survivors who are in turn immune to HIV. And thus another instance of large scale natural selection in humans.
I left HIV out of my original post due to the fact that its final outcome remains to be seen, and I think it hits a little too close to home for some people to think objectively about.
' For an example, in modern industrialized societies, it takes a lot of resources to raise a child, so couples are having fewer, and are postponing them until they have saved up enough. Not everyone does the same thing, of course, but it's definitely a trend, and becoming the social norm - large families were once considered a blessing, are now looked down upon, and you may think a 25 year old mother is still young, but not compared to 15 or 16 year old mothers common in the past. '
Good point. I hadn't thought about that originally, but that is only partly true. While developed countries are seeing an increased number of small families, this really only correlates to the middle and upper classes. Lower income families are still generally very large and very young. This results in a balancing effect on the selective pressure with regards to women.
I guess my original statement should have been that humans are messing with selective pressures with very little understanding of the consequences. Who says living longer is a good thing? Living healthier is good, but healthier and longer are two different things.
That may be true, but it still remains to be seen.
Re:Higher levels of natural selection at play
on
The Rights of GM Humans
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Another reason the plagues continued was simple genetics. My plague example was intensionally sparse on details, because like you pointed out there were a variety of factors involved. But the genes responsible for immunity came in two forms, 1) you got sick but still lived or 2) you never got the plague. people in group (1) probably only had one immunity gene, while the people in (2) had two immunity genes. Therefore, not every child born of plague survivors would carry the immunity, thus allowing the continued risk of infections. But on the whole, the european gene pool was significantly affected by the plague.
As far as community, many animals have highly social structures(communities) like wolves, bees, whales, yet these animals still abide by selective pressures. By the way, many of the most intelligent creatures on earth form communities, and it doesn't seem coincidental. The two probably go hand in hand, or in effect they are mutually inclusive. Which would leave me to think that if left to run its course, we may be just the first species to achieve sentience on this planet.
These topics are just too deep, sometimes I think I should keep my mouth shut.
why should the feelings of the heart matter towards the survival of the species? watch nature sometimes, the film crews watch as an accident(either genetic or physical) can cause a hapless animal to die. They do nothing, because it is part of nature. But, if it were a human, well then thats just heartless and cold.
The power output from chips in the brain would have to be extremely minimal. The brain is highly sensitive to temperature changes. At first you might just get a head ache from the new heat source in your head, but eventually you would probably suffer heat stroke and die. Thats not something I am looking forward to.
Re:Improve upon our faults. OCing the Human Brain?
on
The Rights of GM Humans
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Somehow I think our understanding of genetics and the way humans develope is too small for any of this to be fruitful in the near future. Thinking ahead, if we could alter our genetic code(ie. create enhanced humans) really we would only be starting back up the process we stopped. The way I see it, through society humans have slowly stopped natural selection from occuring within our own population. The last major occurance of natural selection in humans that I recall was during the Black Plague in Europe. Only people who produced a certain protein on their immune cells(I have forgotten its name) were able to survive the plague. So now the survivors all carried that gene, which helped them and their offspring be immune to similar diseases to the plague. This happens in nature all the time, but in humans it doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Diseases are not always a bad thing, in the long run they are often helpful in preserving a species.
I agree with you. I think people(western society) tend to only look at their actions impact in the short term if at all. Our actions long term impact is what we will be remembered in the future by, if humanity survives long enough. Do we really want to be remembered as a culture that raped the land, and left nothing for its children? Or maybe we could be remembered as a culture with enough foresight to take action in preserving our little home in the stars for future civilizations to enjoy.
At Circuit City, employees get an at cost discount. Well with DVD's, the new release sale prices are below the employee discount price. Since CC probably doesn't pay more or less than other retailers(online and offline), I would say that yes the sale prices are below cost.
I am of course only refering to the stores cost, not the movie studios cost to manufacture.
That would be a horrible crime against Joe if he was forced to watch 'UHF' as a replacement for 'About A Boy'. Thats like getting ground chuck when what you wanted was filet minon. Poor, poor Joe.
Public Libraries are a great source for DVD's, but sometimes it is very hard to find the movies you want. My old library had lots of movies, even some new releases, and it was free. Now that I moved to a new area, the library system here charges for each rental and the selection is not as good.
IMO, if the DVD just came out and you want to rent it expect it to be hard to find.
that sounds like the same logic a porn site would use. Sign people up at one cost, get you hooked to the service(Netflix = convience; porn site = lots o' pr0n), then charge customers credit card monthly at a higher price. Seems to work for the internet porn industry.
In Economics I learned that resources are limited. Combine that with biology and you get natural selection. Now with natural selection you have more offspring born than can possibly be supported by the limited resources. So, some offspring make it(the strong, atleast in terms of the current state), and some don't(the weak). This is a cruel, but efficient way of ensuring the species survives.
Now lets apply this to the current topic. Killing unborn fetuses or embryos(it does not matter in this case) is our(humans) way of artificial selection. While not the same as natural selection it still gives a similar result, limited resources are not spread too thinly so the species can continue. So, while not a very nice thing to think about, in the long run this is a good thing. Any research that might come out of the deaths of the embryos/fetuses should be looked at as a positive action coming from an ugly situation.
Now, I convienently left out the whole humans are sacred topic from that. Well, humans are sacred, but so are all the other creatures we live with. Why is one human life worth more than an animal life? Why is it ok to let animals die by natural selection, while humans must use all our resources to keep each other alive? Humans are special, our brain helps to make us special, but no more special than any other animal on Earth. We would be arrogant to think otherwise. A human is a human from the moment of conception, but when should that life be sacrificed for the good of the rest? I would argue, that if the embryo or fetus does not have anyone who is willing to give the resources necesary to care for it into adulthood, then we are obligated to humanity not to burden further already burdened resources.
Those are my two cents.
Notes: resources for this post are defined as anything from time, space(ie. land), money, food, water, etc.
While it is true that most of the danger in driving on the highway results from people driving at different speeds, there are other dangers. While you may feel in complete control of your car at 85 mph, I would argue that your senses have deluded you. Cars are governed by laws of physics in how they behave on the road. Using these laws, road engineers come up with maximum safe speeds. While thses speeds are not necesarily the actual speed limits posted, they are not exceedingly high above the posted limits. Over confidence is a huge problem that plagues many drivers. This is why teens get in accidents so often, but it also results in more experienced drivers getting in accidents. More likely it would be safer if every driver drove the current speed limit, as opposed to simply raising the speed limit.
I also agree with your statements that too many people in the USA have a drivers license. This results in not only dangerous drivers, but too many people on the road to begin with. But, your statements about speeding make me question whether the "extremely skilled" drivers would be the safest people to have out on the road. NASCAR is on closed circuit coarses for a reason.
I want SimAnt 2000 too. SimAnt was the first sim game I ever played. I think they could update it and make it pretty sweet. Add some adaptive AI, flashy new graphics, rail guns...oops wrong game.
that is exactly what i was thinking. what kind of fatigue properties does this have. cars(and most other machines) don't just get loaded once and thats it. They get loaded again and again. often cyclically. Things can have great static properties, but their fatigue strength needs to be there also to be useful.
hey, as long as those beer cans were empty I am ok with that. All kidding aside, I do see your point. But, for every LoTR(though I did find the Wargs sequence in TTT looked like "bad CGI" to me) there will be an Eraser. Good filmmakers know what they are doing, and so we as film watchers need to place some faith in their abilities. It didn't seem to me that the CGI in Hulk took shortcuts(unless you count the fact that he doesn't look quite real enough), especially considering the return to the Hulk's comic book proportions(a good move IMO).
imdb.com says that: Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) [us] (special visual effects and animation) K.N.B. EFX Group Inc. [us] are doing the effects. I would think with ILM if they say they are doing it on purpose, Ang Lee really wants the CGI to look like it does.
Actually, CGI is not always cheaper nor faster. Sometimes though it is easier or safer for those making the film to use CGI instead of practical effects. Films are made with real people and their lives and safety need to be taken into account while making a film. If the stunt can be done practically, you would be hard pressed to find a person making films today who wouldn't try it practically first. CGI is slow, costly, and often times doesn't allow the actors to give the best performance. Therefore CGI is used only when it is impractical to do so otherwise. This is most often the case atleast.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually that is the same protein or similar to the Plague resistant protein. I saw where some researchers believe that those people whose ancestors carried immunity to the plague had increased resistance to HIV. So yes, we may soon see populations decimated by HIV only to have survivors who are in turn immune to HIV. And thus another instance of large scale natural selection in humans.
I left HIV out of my original post due to the fact that its final outcome remains to be seen, and I think it hits a little too close to home for some people to think objectively about.
' For an example, in modern industrialized societies, it takes a lot of resources to raise a child, so couples are having fewer, and are postponing them until they have saved up enough. Not everyone does the same thing, of course, but it's definitely a trend, and becoming the social norm - large families were once considered a blessing, are now looked down upon, and you may think a 25 year old mother is still young, but not compared to 15 or 16 year old mothers common in the past. ' Good point. I hadn't thought about that originally, but that is only partly true. While developed countries are seeing an increased number of small families, this really only correlates to the middle and upper classes. Lower income families are still generally very large and very young. This results in a balancing effect on the selective pressure with regards to women. I guess my original statement should have been that humans are messing with selective pressures with very little understanding of the consequences. Who says living longer is a good thing? Living healthier is good, but healthier and longer are two different things.
That may be true, but it still remains to be seen.
Another reason the plagues continued was simple genetics. My plague example was intensionally sparse on details, because like you pointed out there were a variety of factors involved. But the genes responsible for immunity came in two forms, 1) you got sick but still lived or 2) you never got the plague. people in group (1) probably only had one immunity gene, while the people in (2) had two immunity genes. Therefore, not every child born of plague survivors would carry the immunity, thus allowing the continued risk of infections. But on the whole, the european gene pool was significantly affected by the plague.
As far as community, many animals have highly social structures(communities) like wolves, bees, whales, yet these animals still abide by selective pressures. By the way, many of the most intelligent creatures on earth form communities, and it doesn't seem coincidental. The two probably go hand in hand, or in effect they are mutually inclusive. Which would leave me to think that if left to run its course, we may be just the first species to achieve sentience on this planet.
These topics are just too deep, sometimes I think I should keep my mouth shut.
now that would be sweet!
you first
why should the feelings of the heart matter towards the survival of the species? watch nature sometimes, the film crews watch as an accident(either genetic or physical) can cause a hapless animal to die. They do nothing, because it is part of nature. But, if it were a human, well then thats just heartless and cold.
The power output from chips in the brain would have to be extremely minimal. The brain is highly sensitive to temperature changes. At first you might just get a head ache from the new heat source in your head, but eventually you would probably suffer heat stroke and die. Thats not something I am looking forward to.
Somehow I think our understanding of genetics and the way humans develope is too small for any of this to be fruitful in the near future. Thinking ahead, if we could alter our genetic code(ie. create enhanced humans) really we would only be starting back up the process we stopped. The way I see it, through society humans have slowly stopped natural selection from occuring within our own population. The last major occurance of natural selection in humans that I recall was during the Black Plague in Europe. Only people who produced a certain protein on their immune cells(I have forgotten its name) were able to survive the plague. So now the survivors all carried that gene, which helped them and their offspring be immune to similar diseases to the plague. This happens in nature all the time, but in humans it doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Diseases are not always a bad thing, in the long run they are often helpful in preserving a species.
I agree with you. I think people(western society) tend to only look at their actions impact in the short term if at all. Our actions long term impact is what we will be remembered in the future by, if humanity survives long enough. Do we really want to be remembered as a culture that raped the land, and left nothing for its children? Or maybe we could be remembered as a culture with enough foresight to take action in preserving our little home in the stars for future civilizations to enjoy.
beer die is the best game ever. my friends and I have branched out from Cleveland to Lexington to New York. We keep stats, but i forgot the url.
It is a game requiring true athletic and drinking skills. A good partner helps too.
Most investigative reporting seems to be going on in finding out who is sleeping with whom in Hollywood and Washington.
At Circuit City, employees get an at cost discount. Well with DVD's, the new release sale prices are below the employee discount price. Since CC probably doesn't pay more or less than other retailers(online and offline), I would say that yes the sale prices are below cost.
I am of course only refering to the stores cost, not the movie studios cost to manufacture.
Note: I am an employee of CC
I was only being stupid. Don't mind me
That would be a horrible crime against Joe if he was forced to watch 'UHF' as a replacement for 'About A Boy'. Thats like getting ground chuck when what you wanted was filet minon. Poor, poor Joe.
Public Libraries are a great source for DVD's, but sometimes it is very hard to find the movies you want. My old library had lots of movies, even some new releases, and it was free. Now that I moved to a new area, the library system here charges for each rental and the selection is not as good.
IMO, if the DVD just came out and you want to rent it expect it to be hard to find.
that sounds like the same logic a porn site would use. Sign people up at one cost, get you hooked to the service(Netflix = convience; porn site = lots o' pr0n), then charge customers credit card monthly at a higher price. Seems to work for the internet porn industry.
Somehow I think 'Titanic' is the last movie that people are concerned about having too few copies of.
You don't get screwed over, you just can't get high demand movies as readily as someone new customers.
Besides if you want to watch movies that bad, go out and buy them. Most movies are available at below cost the first days after release.
In Economics I learned that resources are limited. Combine that with biology and you get natural selection. Now with natural selection you have more offspring born than can possibly be supported by the limited resources. So, some offspring make it(the strong, atleast in terms of the current state), and some don't(the weak). This is a cruel, but efficient way of ensuring the species survives.
Now lets apply this to the current topic. Killing unborn fetuses or embryos(it does not matter in this case) is our(humans) way of artificial selection. While not the same as natural selection it still gives a similar result, limited resources are not spread too thinly so the species can continue. So, while not a very nice thing to think about, in the long run this is a good thing. Any research that might come out of the deaths of the embryos/fetuses should be looked at as a positive action coming from an ugly situation.
Now, I convienently left out the whole humans are sacred topic from that. Well, humans are sacred, but so are all the other creatures we live with. Why is one human life worth more than an animal life? Why is it ok to let animals die by natural selection, while humans must use all our resources to keep each other alive? Humans are special, our brain helps to make us special, but no more special than any other animal on Earth. We would be arrogant to think otherwise. A human is a human from the moment of conception, but when should that life be sacrificed for the good of the rest? I would argue, that if the embryo or fetus does not have anyone who is willing to give the resources necesary to care for it into adulthood, then we are obligated to humanity not to burden further already burdened resources.
Those are my two cents.
Notes: resources for this post are defined as anything from time, space(ie. land), money, food, water, etc.
While it is true that most of the danger in driving on the highway results from people driving at different speeds, there are other dangers. While you may feel in complete control of your car at 85 mph, I would argue that your senses have deluded you. Cars are governed by laws of physics in how they behave on the road. Using these laws, road engineers come up with maximum safe speeds. While thses speeds are not necesarily the actual speed limits posted, they are not exceedingly high above the posted limits. Over confidence is a huge problem that plagues many drivers. This is why teens get in accidents so often, but it also results in more experienced drivers getting in accidents. More likely it would be safer if every driver drove the current speed limit, as opposed to simply raising the speed limit.
I also agree with your statements that too many people in the USA have a drivers license. This results in not only dangerous drivers, but too many people on the road to begin with. But, your statements about speeding make me question whether the "extremely skilled" drivers would be the safest people to have out on the road. NASCAR is on closed circuit coarses for a reason.
I want SimAnt 2000 too. SimAnt was the first sim game I ever played. I think they could update it and make it pretty sweet. Add some adaptive AI, flashy new graphics, rail guns...oops wrong game.
that is exactly what i was thinking. what kind of fatigue properties does this have. cars(and most other machines) don't just get loaded once and thats it. They get loaded again and again. often cyclically. Things can have great static properties, but their fatigue strength needs to be there also to be useful.
hey, as long as those beer cans were empty I am ok with that. All kidding aside, I do see your point. But, for every LoTR(though I did find the Wargs sequence in TTT looked like "bad CGI" to me) there will be an Eraser. Good filmmakers know what they are doing, and so we as film watchers need to place some faith in their abilities. It didn't seem to me that the CGI in Hulk took shortcuts(unless you count the fact that he doesn't look quite real enough), especially considering the return to the Hulk's comic book proportions(a good move IMO).
imdb.com says that:
Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) [us] (special visual effects and animation)
K.N.B. EFX Group Inc. [us]
are doing the effects. I would think with ILM if they say they are doing it on purpose, Ang Lee really wants the CGI to look like it does.
Actually, CGI is not always cheaper nor faster. Sometimes though it is easier or safer for those making the film to use CGI instead of practical effects. Films are made with real people and their lives and safety need to be taken into account while making a film. If the stunt can be done practically, you would be hard pressed to find a person making films today who wouldn't try it practically first. CGI is slow, costly, and often times doesn't allow the actors to give the best performance. Therefore CGI is used only when it is impractical to do so otherwise. This is most often the case atleast.