"Anyone could be smart, anyone could be hard-working. The worst-case of the society I am describing is one without that possibility. It is utterly unmeritocratic: no matter how hard you work, you would be unable to succeed because you were genetically inferior."
Isn't that how it is now, save that the genes are distributed randomly?
And that is the whole point. By getting rid of that random distribution, you are adding a whole new transgenerational effect. So now rich parents can not only buy better toys, education, food and childcare for their kids, but also better genetic attributes. That is a serious worry for anyone who believes that we should all be born with an equal opportunity for success.
You acknowledge that it's rational to become more accepting after being presented with the positive evidence. You assume that I have mountains of evidence to the contrary. I dont. You might. Doctors might. Researchers might. But I dont.
I wouldn't expect you to. Surely that's why we have professionals who are experts in medicine, isn't it?
Even if you dont believe that there should be a real medical explanation for an activity helping relieve someone's pain and helps to improve their quality of life, why would you tell them to stop? The ultimate goal is not to legitamize traditional medicine. It is not to justify decades of medical research and education. The goal is to help people. If they are helped, and there is no harm to themselves or others, what do you care?
If someone has a serious medical condition, and they are treating it with homeopathy, instead of using a scientifically proven treatment, then they are running a risk. A totally unnecessary risk. Talking about people who've done it and come out just fine simply covers this up. To answer your question, my concern is that more people will end up dead because of this totally unnecessary risk.
After this situation, I've been more receptive to alternative medicine. I've seen other situations with people dealing with debilitating pain and infection who have seen major improvement through the alternatives. I was a skeptic. I am now dumbfounded. The bottom line is I've witnessed people's condition and quality of life improve more often than not as a direct result of the alternative medicine.
You might get flamed for this, but actually your change in attitude after seeing alternative medicine apparently work is quite rational. You've seen evidence supporting an idea so you've become more accepting of it.
What I think people would find less rational is the fact that you then ignore the mountain of evidence against it, where conditions are properly controlled to cut out the possibility that any observed effect is a fluke. How do you account for that evidence?
I honestly pray that you never find yourself in a situation in which you've exhausted the 'accepted' methods of treatment. But if you do, swallow your pride and try the alternatives. My bet is that you'll look back at the time you spent in pain only to regret that your pride slowed your path to recovery.
But this is where your attitude is wrong, I think. It shouldn't be a question of pride, should it? It should be a question of going with whatever the evidence shows to be likely to have an effect. I think the child's mother took an unwarranted risk in this case, although of course I don't know all the details.
But the placebos have no effect. That's what they're there for - to compare someone taking medicine against someone taking nothing.
No! Think about it. If you wanted to compare "against someone taking nothing", then you'd give nothing, not a placebo. Placebos do have an effect (the, erm, placebo effect). If they had no effect, what would be the point in using them at all?
So, if we suppose, for a moment, that the climate science is wrong; what then? What will we say to those who have been impeded? What will we say to those whose fortunes have been bled away? What will we say to those whose fortunes were prevented? What will we say?
Will we say that the world is better off without all that CO2, regardless of the science being wrong?
No, we'll say that we acted on the best evidence we had available at the time, of course. What more can we do?
I agree that the time to act is now! But, the action needs to be study and verification. Right now, the science has some massive gaps, a lack of understanding and a healthy dose of shenanigans thrown in for good measure. Even if the science is proven correct...
There is no major national scientific academy in the world that agrees with your "wait and see" conclusion. Yes,there are always gaps in scientific knowledge. But if you wait for absolute proof it will be too late.
No! Your argument appears to be that the consensus was against Galileo, and that (part of) that consensus was "scientific", so (by implication) we shouldn't be too hasty to line up behind the scientific consensus today. That is obviously wrong, and you yourself have given a clue to why it's wrong by putting "science" in quotation marks. Why? Because the word "science" did not refer to the same thing then as it does now. So the fact that "scientists" may have been against Galileo is not a cautionary tale for our time.
I don't think my point was about the RC church being right at all in the beginning - in fact, it was the people that were right (e.g., Galileo) who were forced to recant or worse. My point is rather that an historical example of the prevailing tradition being wrong contests the OP's post on numerical superiority being a good indicator on reliability (which he notes, but even his suggestion may be contestable).
But your example falls down under scrutiny. Those who forced Galileo to recant did not do so on scientific grounds, but rather because his findings disagreed with their interpretation of their holy book. The AGW consensus is a consensus of scientific bodies, not religious ones.
They're treated differently because they are different. With theft, you have deprived the music shop of a product. With copying, you have not.
If you still can't see the difference, repeat the same action 10,000 times. With theft, the music shop would go out of business, having lost all its stock to, erm, theft. With copying, no-one would be any different, expect that you would be better off by 10,000 albums.
You may still not believe that copying is morally right, but saying it's somehow "the same as theft" just looks dumb.
Sorry, but your music store example is a bad one. Let me stand outside the music store and make 10,000 copies of the ONE CD the store sold me, and I'll offer them for free to anyone that was coming into the store looking to buy it. I haven't deprived the store of product, but I have deprived it of business, yet either action will likely lead to the same outcome; a business owner being affected.
If that's the only product that store sold, chances are they WOULD go out of business.
No, you're changing the premise. You didn't say "making copies and then giving them to other people, at the entrance to a music shop". You said "making copies". If I make 10,000 copies, just make copies and nothing else, then the music shop is not affected in any way.
either action will likely lead to the same outcome; a business owner being affected.
Weasel words. The question was whether copying is different from stealing, not whether or how business owners are "affected" by either or both.
It doesnt actually matter what the Lords or anyone else thinks.
We saw this with ID cards in 2006 - Labour have a majority, so they can ram any bill through thanks to the Parliament Rule (if it goes between the Commons and the Lords a set number of times - I think its 5 - then the bill is automatically approved).
Not quite - the Parliament Act (1949) says that if a bill is reintroduced for a second Parliamentary session then it can pass without the consent of the Lords. Reintroducing a bill is quite a big deal, as legislative time is limited, and so it is rare for governments to do this.
Not that I mind that much, but who came up with making copies being "not theft" and "not criminal"? I'd like to ask them what the hell is the difference in me stealing a CD from a music store and me "making unauthorised copies" of a friends CD?
Both give ME, the same net result, which is obtaining a product or property without paying, and therefore FOR PROFIT, yet violations of each are treated completely different.
Not saying that any of this nonsense in going after private citizens with extortionist tactics is right either, but damn.
They're treated differently because they are different. With theft, you have deprived the music shop of a product. With copying, you have not.
If you still can't see the difference, repeat the same action 10,000 times. With theft, the music shop would go out of business, having lost all its stock to, erm, theft. With copying, no-one would be any different, expect that you would be better off by 10,000 albums.
You may still not believe that copying is morally right, but saying it's somehow "the same as theft" just looks dumb.
Nuclear power is inherently dangerous, we do not know how to deal with the waste, the nuclear fossil fuel will last only a couple of decades, and huge power plants are as inefficient as it gets because of the long distances electricity is transported. By contrast, distributed generation of electricity as proposed by the article is much more efficient, because it happens very close to the consumer.
There are already passively safe reactor designs available to be built, most of the waste that will ever be produced has already been produced as modern reactors produce far less, and where did you get the idea that there are only a couple of decades of fuel left? More like a hundred years with current technologies and billions of years if breeder reactors are used: http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html
"[This] does not at all agree with the bulk of scientific studies on vehicle lifecycle analysis, many of which conclude that about 85 percent of total lifetime energy use occurs in driving the vehicle."
To put it another way, here in the U.S., we are completely free to shout "FIRE!" in a theater all we like - we just aren't immune to the consequences.
Just as, in China, you are completely free to criticise the government all you like - you just aren't immune to the consequences.
I think you're drawing a distinction without a difference here. The fact is that there are limits on free speech, even in the US. If you get put in prison for shouting "fire" in a theatre, then you are not free to shout "fire" in a theatre.
This slippery-slope argument may have some validity but the way you make it is a bit facile. So do you object to having CCTV in any kind of private property? What about, say, banks? The reason banks have CCTV is that certain people want to rob banks, and putting the cameras there makes it a little bit harder. Certain pubs are also trouble spots - in fact I'd argue that there are inner-city pubs in the UK where you are a much greater risk of being shot than in your average bank. So if putting CCTV helps to catch those criminals (and I *did say* "if") then there's a balance to be struck between privacy and safety here.
As for the legal mechanism proposed, licences to sell alcohol have conditions imposed on them all the time. Having to employ a certain number of doormen is one example that I know about. So if the CCTV helps to keep the place safe, then I probably won't be complaining about privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
"Anyone could be smart, anyone could be hard-working. The worst-case of the society I am describing is one without that possibility. It is utterly unmeritocratic: no matter how hard you work, you would be unable to succeed because you were genetically inferior."
Isn't that how it is now, save that the genes are distributed randomly?
And that is the whole point. By getting rid of that random distribution, you are adding a whole new transgenerational effect. So now rich parents can not only buy better toys, education, food and childcare for their kids, but also better genetic attributes. That is a serious worry for anyone who believes that we should all be born with an equal opportunity for success.
You acknowledge that it's rational to become more accepting after being presented with the positive evidence. You assume that I have mountains of evidence to the contrary. I dont. You might. Doctors might. Researchers might. But I dont.
I wouldn't expect you to. Surely that's why we have professionals who are experts in medicine, isn't it?
Even if you dont believe that there should be a real medical explanation for an activity helping relieve someone's pain and helps to improve their quality of life, why would you tell them to stop? The ultimate goal is not to legitamize traditional medicine. It is not to justify decades of medical research and education. The goal is to help people. If they are helped, and there is no harm to themselves or others, what do you care?
If someone has a serious medical condition, and they are treating it with homeopathy, instead of using a scientifically proven treatment, then they are running a risk. A totally unnecessary risk. Talking about people who've done it and come out just fine simply covers this up. To answer your question, my concern is that more people will end up dead because of this totally unnecessary risk.
After this situation, I've been more receptive to alternative medicine. I've seen other situations with people dealing with debilitating pain and infection who have seen major improvement through the alternatives. I was a skeptic. I am now dumbfounded. The bottom line is I've witnessed people's condition and quality of life improve more often than not as a direct result of the alternative medicine.
You might get flamed for this, but actually your change in attitude after seeing alternative medicine apparently work is quite rational. You've seen evidence supporting an idea so you've become more accepting of it.
What I think people would find less rational is the fact that you then ignore the mountain of evidence against it, where conditions are properly controlled to cut out the possibility that any observed effect is a fluke. How do you account for that evidence?
I honestly pray that you never find yourself in a situation in which you've exhausted the 'accepted' methods of treatment. But if you do, swallow your pride and try the alternatives. My bet is that you'll look back at the time you spent in pain only to regret that your pride slowed your path to recovery.
But this is where your attitude is wrong, I think. It shouldn't be a question of pride, should it? It should be a question of going with whatever the evidence shows to be likely to have an effect. I think the child's mother took an unwarranted risk in this case, although of course I don't know all the details.
But the placebos have no effect. That's what they're there for - to compare someone taking medicine against someone taking nothing.
No! Think about it. If you wanted to compare "against someone taking nothing", then you'd give nothing, not a placebo. Placebos do have an effect (the, erm, placebo effect). If they had no effect, what would be the point in using them at all?
So, if we suppose, for a moment, that the climate science is wrong; what then? What will we say to those who have been impeded? What will we say to those whose fortunes have been bled away? What will we say to those whose fortunes were prevented? What will we say?
Will we say that the world is better off without all that CO2, regardless of the science being wrong?
No, we'll say that we acted on the best evidence we had available at the time, of course. What more can we do?
I agree that the time to act is now! But, the action needs to be study and verification. Right now, the science has some massive gaps, a lack of understanding and a healthy dose of shenanigans thrown in for good measure. Even if the science is proven correct...
There is no major national scientific academy in the world that agrees with your "wait and see" conclusion. Yes,there are always gaps in scientific knowledge. But if you wait for absolute proof it will be too late.
because the "science" in question
No! Your argument appears to be that the consensus was against Galileo, and that (part of) that consensus was "scientific", so (by implication) we shouldn't be too hasty to line up behind the scientific consensus today. That is obviously wrong, and you yourself have given a clue to why it's wrong by putting "science" in quotation marks. Why? Because the word "science" did not refer to the same thing then as it does now. So the fact that "scientists" may have been against Galileo is not a cautionary tale for our time.
I don't think my point was about the RC church being right at all in the beginning - in fact, it was the people that were right (e.g., Galileo) who were forced to recant or worse. My point is rather that an historical example of the prevailing tradition being wrong contests the OP's post on numerical superiority being a good indicator on reliability (which he notes, but even his suggestion may be contestable).
But your example falls down under scrutiny. Those who forced Galileo to recant did not do so on scientific grounds, but rather because his findings disagreed with their interpretation of their holy book. The AGW consensus is a consensus of scientific bodies, not religious ones.
They're treated differently because they are different. With theft, you have deprived the music shop of a product. With copying, you have not.
If you still can't see the difference, repeat the same action 10,000 times. With theft, the music shop would go out of business, having lost all its stock to, erm, theft. With copying, no-one would be any different, expect that you would be better off by 10,000 albums.
You may still not believe that copying is morally right, but saying it's somehow "the same as theft" just looks dumb.
Sorry, but your music store example is a bad one. Let me stand outside the music store and make 10,000 copies of the ONE CD the store sold me, and I'll offer them for free to anyone that was coming into the store looking to buy it. I haven't deprived the store of product, but I have deprived it of business, yet either action will likely lead to the same outcome; a business owner being affected.
If that's the only product that store sold, chances are they WOULD go out of business.
No, you're changing the premise. You didn't say "making copies and then giving them to other people, at the entrance to a music shop". You said "making copies". If I make 10,000 copies, just make copies and nothing else, then the music shop is not affected in any way.
either action will likely lead to the same outcome; a business owner being affected.
Weasel words. The question was whether copying is different from stealing, not whether or how business owners are "affected" by either or both.
It doesnt actually matter what the Lords or anyone else thinks.
We saw this with ID cards in 2006 - Labour have a majority, so they can ram any bill through thanks to the Parliament Rule (if it goes between the Commons and the Lords a set number of times - I think its 5 - then the bill is automatically approved).
Not quite - the Parliament Act (1949) says that if a bill is reintroduced for a second Parliamentary session then it can pass without the consent of the Lords. Reintroducing a bill is quite a big deal, as legislative time is limited, and so it is rare for governments to do this.
Not that I mind that much, but who came up with making copies being "not theft" and "not criminal"? I'd like to ask them what the hell is the difference in me stealing a CD from a music store and me "making unauthorised copies" of a friends CD?
Both give ME, the same net result, which is obtaining a product or property without paying, and therefore FOR PROFIT, yet violations of each are treated completely different.
Not saying that any of this nonsense in going after private citizens with extortionist tactics is right either, but damn.
They're treated differently because they are different. With theft, you have deprived the music shop of a product. With copying, you have not.
If you still can't see the difference, repeat the same action 10,000 times. With theft, the music shop would go out of business, having lost all its stock to, erm, theft. With copying, no-one would be any different, expect that you would be better off by 10,000 albums.
You may still not believe that copying is morally right, but saying it's somehow "the same as theft" just looks dumb.
Erm... and *you* might want to consider the GP's user name...
Nuclear power is inherently dangerous, we do not know how to deal with the waste, the nuclear fossil fuel will last only a couple of decades, and huge power plants are as inefficient as it gets because of the long distances electricity is transported. By contrast, distributed generation of electricity as proposed by the article is much more efficient, because it happens very close to the consumer.
There are already passively safe reactor designs available to be built, most of the waste that will ever be produced has already been produced as modern reactors produce far less, and where did you get the idea that there are only a couple of decades of fuel left? More like a hundred years with current technologies and billions of years if breeder reactors are used: http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html
http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth
"[This] does not at all agree with the bulk of scientific studies on vehicle lifecycle analysis, many of which conclude that about 85 percent of total lifetime energy use occurs in driving the vehicle."
To put it another way, here in the U.S., we are completely free to shout "FIRE!" in a theater all we like - we just aren't immune to the consequences.
Just as, in China, you are completely free to criticise the government all you like - you just aren't immune to the consequences.
I think you're drawing a distinction without a difference here. The fact is that there are limits on free speech, even in the US. If you get put in prison for shouting "fire" in a theatre, then you are not free to shout "fire" in a theatre.
This slippery-slope argument may have some validity but the way you make it is a bit facile. So do you object to having CCTV in any kind of private property? What about, say, banks? The reason banks have CCTV is that certain people want to rob banks, and putting the cameras there makes it a little bit harder. Certain pubs are also trouble spots - in fact I'd argue that there are inner-city pubs in the UK where you are a much greater risk of being shot than in your average bank. So if putting CCTV helps to catch those criminals (and I *did say* "if") then there's a balance to be struck between privacy and safety here.
As for the legal mechanism proposed, licences to sell alcohol have conditions imposed on them all the time. Having to employ a certain number of doormen is one example that I know about. So if the CCTV helps to keep the place safe, then I probably won't be complaining about privacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mkd_kabal.jpg