Until you realize that by eliminating those that are wasteful and hurtful to everyone else, you increase the general happiness of everyone and make it enjoyable for everyone.
That works until you get sent to jail for killing too many CEOs.
Where does that "last century" come from? I'm pretty sure it's clear I'm talking about ancient times, quite a bit before even the 30,000 years you talk about.
I am talking about a time before humans learned to cook their food. Cooking wasn't invented in the last century FFS.
I had a similar discussion with a friend of mine who studies prehistory and early human development.
It's pretty hard to determine the "real" average age of ancient people just by digging through their graves (if they have anything like this at all). Let's imagine you find a prehistoric graveyard. What will you find? Well, a bunch of people who were buried there, of course. What will you not find? Anyone whose body could not be retrieved by the tribe. In other words, you will not find the kids that the lion caught or that were abducted by other tribes, you will not find the hunters who had a broken bone and couldn't quite run so fast anymore when defending the catch against the lions turned bad with more lions showing up and you had to hightail it. Telling the average age from graves is very tempting, but very misleading.
What the graves tell us, though, is that those people that did get old usually did so in bad health. Often malnourished, bones that show off how their life was a daily struggle, many with injuries that made them probably a liability for their tribe. Funny enough, this was probably also the reason just WHY they got so old, if you break your leg at age 20 and can't hunt anymore, but you survive it and now you "work at home", so to speak, your chance to die in a hunting accident or falling off a tree while trying to gather fruits is way lower.
Old people (over the age of 50) were still rare. Many died much earlier from accidents, from animals that refused to become food or from animals that wanted to turn the human into food. If anything, this is a testament of our ability to work in medium sized groups. One "old" person is enough to teach a tribe of young hunters, and one old granny can keep an eye on a dozen kids or two.
Sure, I'll bring the popcorn. I always love the part where you get torn a new one as a substitute for the cheating asshole that left her alone with the brat.
When you died at the old age of 35 a million years ago, chances are that you have seen the birth of your grandchild maybe managed to be there to see it through those critical first 3-5 years of its life, how much more "elder" do you want to get? Ok, granted, maybe you can make it to 40 and see your great-grandchild be born, but I guess that's already asking a bit much, ain't it?
Yes. If it's not worth your time to think for a moment and formulate your own concerns, I guess the matter isn't important enough for you to consider your input valuable, because it's likely you didn't bother to learn about it to make an informed decision whether you're for or against it.
We already have enough idiots parroting what somebody else tells them.
Take a wild guess who gets up and moves once across the globe, the achievers or the couch potatoes? Now compare the handful of "successful fresh off the boat" people to the amount of people in India.
If you try to compare something, at least TRY to make them comparable.
People who have the time to breakfast also probably suffer from less stress and generally have more time to prepare healthy meals instead of stuffing their face with whatever is available to rip open and stir into hot water.
You know what else isn't available in nature? Cooking. Oh, and in the northern regions, forget about citrus fruits, so enjoy your scurvy from time to time.
Just because something is "unnatural" doesn't mean it's bad. It does instinctively make sense to say "hey, our ancestors didn't have X, they evolved without X, so we don't need X to survive". The fallacy here is that our ancestors only needed to survive until they could procreate to keep the species going. So dying with 30-35 is perfectly fine. You'd procreate before (at about 14-16 years of age, maybe have 2-3 more kids and die when they in turn reach the ripe age of 14-16), so the species is fine.
You probably ain't, but who gives a shit? It's natural!
So please can the "it's unnatural" argument. It's bollocks.
Well, in case you're religious and Christian, is there a way you could be appeased if they razed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to build the observatory?
Time to discover side effects is pretty much the same for either method. The organisms grow (likely, unless that was modified as well) at the same rate, reproduce at the same rate, so what would you discover faster in breeding vs. GM? What you potentially leave out is intermediate stages, other than that I fail to see the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
"Darling? Our boy will either be a CEO or a maniac."
"Darling? Why the tautology?"
Until you realize that by eliminating those that are wasteful and hurtful to everyone else, you increase the general happiness of everyone and make it enjoyable for everyone.
That works until you get sent to jail for killing too many CEOs.
Where does that "last century" come from? I'm pretty sure it's clear I'm talking about ancient times, quite a bit before even the 30,000 years you talk about.
I am talking about a time before humans learned to cook their food. Cooking wasn't invented in the last century FFS.
I had a similar discussion with a friend of mine who studies prehistory and early human development.
It's pretty hard to determine the "real" average age of ancient people just by digging through their graves (if they have anything like this at all). Let's imagine you find a prehistoric graveyard. What will you find? Well, a bunch of people who were buried there, of course. What will you not find? Anyone whose body could not be retrieved by the tribe. In other words, you will not find the kids that the lion caught or that were abducted by other tribes, you will not find the hunters who had a broken bone and couldn't quite run so fast anymore when defending the catch against the lions turned bad with more lions showing up and you had to hightail it. Telling the average age from graves is very tempting, but very misleading.
What the graves tell us, though, is that those people that did get old usually did so in bad health. Often malnourished, bones that show off how their life was a daily struggle, many with injuries that made them probably a liability for their tribe. Funny enough, this was probably also the reason just WHY they got so old, if you break your leg at age 20 and can't hunt anymore, but you survive it and now you "work at home", so to speak, your chance to die in a hunting accident or falling off a tree while trying to gather fruits is way lower.
Old people (over the age of 50) were still rare. Many died much earlier from accidents, from animals that refused to become food or from animals that wanted to turn the human into food. If anything, this is a testament of our ability to work in medium sized groups. One "old" person is enough to teach a tribe of young hunters, and one old granny can keep an eye on a dozen kids or two.
Sure, I'll bring the popcorn. I always love the part where you get torn a new one as a substitute for the cheating asshole that left her alone with the brat.
IMO it was already over when Theodore Roosevelt got it in 1906. Certainly no later than 1973 when Kissinger got his.
Look at the laureates of the peace prize. Especially in recent history.
Screw this, all you need it a healthy intake of the four big food groups: Fat, sugar, salt and caffeine.
When you died at the old age of 35 a million years ago, chances are that you have seen the birth of your grandchild maybe managed to be there to see it through those critical first 3-5 years of its life, how much more "elder" do you want to get? Ok, granted, maybe you can make it to 40 and see your great-grandchild be born, but I guess that's already asking a bit much, ain't it?
May I be present when you discuss this with a minimum wage earning single mom working double shifts?
You have odd eating habits. That's more suited for a dinner than a breakfast.
Yes. If it's not worth your time to think for a moment and formulate your own concerns, I guess the matter isn't important enough for you to consider your input valuable, because it's likely you didn't bother to learn about it to make an informed decision whether you're for or against it.
We already have enough idiots parroting what somebody else tells them.
I can't speak for him, but I read it so that the extremely popular idea was Net Neutrality, and that the astroturfing faked opposition to it.
That's not quite how the US government works.
Exactly, you don't get a law by writing letters to politicians. You get a law by writing checks to politicians.
How about net neutrality AND dropping government mandated monopolies? Ever thought about that?
Personally, I think Trump's success says more about Hillary than about Trump...
Then it's time to take back control.
Strangely, though, this is illegal.
C'mon, why go for the lesser evil, it's so Un-American to not want the best!
Observation bias much?
Take a wild guess who gets up and moves once across the globe, the achievers or the couch potatoes? Now compare the handful of "successful fresh off the boat" people to the amount of people in India.
If you try to compare something, at least TRY to make them comparable.
Without my morning Red Bull and the two aspirin I'm simply not functional.
People who have the time to breakfast also probably suffer from less stress and generally have more time to prepare healthy meals instead of stuffing their face with whatever is available to rip open and stir into hot water.
You know what else isn't available in nature? Cooking. Oh, and in the northern regions, forget about citrus fruits, so enjoy your scurvy from time to time.
Just because something is "unnatural" doesn't mean it's bad. It does instinctively make sense to say "hey, our ancestors didn't have X, they evolved without X, so we don't need X to survive". The fallacy here is that our ancestors only needed to survive until they could procreate to keep the species going. So dying with 30-35 is perfectly fine. You'd procreate before (at about 14-16 years of age, maybe have 2-3 more kids and die when they in turn reach the ripe age of 14-16), so the species is fine.
You probably ain't, but who gives a shit? It's natural!
So please can the "it's unnatural" argument. It's bollocks.
Well, in case you're religious and Christian, is there a way you could be appeased if they razed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to build the observatory?
Time to discover side effects is pretty much the same for either method. The organisms grow (likely, unless that was modified as well) at the same rate, reproduce at the same rate, so what would you discover faster in breeding vs. GM? What you potentially leave out is intermediate stages, other than that I fail to see the difference.
There's a species that meddles with what we want to do? Why is it allowed to continue existing? Remove it from the ecosystem.