A very limited exploration of the possible effects of taking a new treatment.
if you disagree, please reassure me that after having gone through clinical trials, we have not in fact had recalls or further information regarding practices or treatments come to light that have caused the removal of drugs or elimination of techniques that were previously considered "safe".
I'm sure you won't find many examples to the contrary, right?
Yes, someone has to be the early adopters. It doesn't, however, have to be me.
Testing can be as rigorous as it likes, all bets are still off when it's released into the wild. All testing does is eliminate some really bad things earlier, it doesn't stop all bad things. The body is waaaaaay more complex than anything yet created by us.
Experts disagree my man. You act like there is a universal understanding of everything medical. You discount the inherent bias that any restricted population of people have due to common influences (such as, out of date textbooks, personality/belief structure selection in the choice of occupation in the first place, anything really). Yes, it's *generally* in my best interest to listen to my doctor. But I *also* have to pay attention to my body, and my child, and to question until any concerns I have are addressed. I *also* have to keep in mind that my doctor will, in most cases, be basing at least part of his or her assessment on a believe structure I don't share.
In the case of a brand new biochemical treatment, that is simply not fully possible, because there is no established data on it. My decision may not the same for two different brand new treatments either.
Look at ADHD. we have pumped a significant number of kids full of speed for their entire childhoods now. It was 'normal' and accepted. Now it looks like ADHD may in fact be something you just grow out of. Would it not be better to just work with a developementally different child rather than pounding their developing nervous system with drugs we don't fully understand for 15 years?
Maybe, maybe not, but these are the kinds of choices we have to make. Medicine said "give them the pills". I would say, "no thanks". Is that really unreasonable?
but, according to who? Using what standards? To what end goal?
What if I live in a tough neighborhood, and I WANT my children to understand violence, because they have to live with it?
that's just a random example, but the point is... harmful or not, unless the harm is both obvious and overwhelming (not just "outweighing"), restriction shouldn't even be considered.
Temporary increases in violent feelings I don't think qualify by themselves. If a clear causal relationship between playing Doom and beating your wife is found, that's another thing entirely of course.
I'm not refusing to vaccinate. I refuse to accept that I should be forced to accept BRAND NEW vaccines. There is a big difference there. One is blind rejection in the face of mountains of evidence (though we do still have some rapidly expanding health problems to explain by some method that reaches an awful lot of people, I'm not willing to reject vaccination as a very likely cause as of yet... though I'll feel a hell of a lot better when we figure out whatever the widespread factor is that is contributing to autism, fibro myalgia, cancer rates, etc). IMHO, skepticism of new tech is not only healthy, it's pretty much a requirement if you're going to call yourself a rational human being. You might accept the risk as small, but you're doing so based on belief, just as I am not quite so quick to believe that is true.
as I post elsewhere in this discussion, I don't get an OS the day it's released either. why in the world would I just smile and nod when a brand new medical treatment, especially one that involves viruses or drugs or any other complex biochemical interaction in the body, is shoved down my throat or my child's throat? Especially if the known risk of not vaccinating is small?
Wow, I'm not a scientist, and i"m not qualified to read and interpet the studies! Imagine that!
Even if I could, you act like the studies are the be all end all of knowledge. Sorry guy, it's just not that simple. Vaccination is great, and for vaccines that have been around awhile, I have no real problems with them (especially after they addressed the mercury issue, but hey, that's wasn't really a PROBLEM anyway, right?). REQUIRING people to take BRAND NEW ones based only on studies is pretty fucked up though. For anything brand new like that, people should be allowed to assess their own comfort with the risk. A study is a study, real life is not the same thing.
I understand what you're saying and for established procedures, I even agree, but for new procedures, you are asking someone to take a known risk (not doing it) vs what amounts to an unknown risk.. the new procedure.
This is not just a dice game. You actually have to decide what you think the risk is... and no one yet knows, for sure, in the case of new procedures. For people who require scientific knowledge to make a decision, you sure seem to take things on faith pretty easy once a couple of studies say it's ok. Me, I want a couple of studies and some time "in the wild". You know, the lab that really matters.
You can take the arguement of authority if you like, go ahead. However, I realize they are just people, and the data they are drawing from is, at best, incomplete, and this is MY life, MY family, and I have a lot more invested in both of those things than anyone else does.
They are expert advisors, not gods, and not absolute authorities. With a 30% misdiagnosis rate, I think we need to be a little more vigilant. But you just go ahead and do what you're told. that is definitely a more rational position than applying any level of skepticism to new practices and discoveries. I suppose you're an early adopter for everything new, or does it apply only to medicine?
I am hardly exaggerrating the state of birth 30 years ago. Sure, the natural birth movement was gaining steam, but it is still TO THIS DAY considered normal to drug mothers for birth. Not as heavily as it used to be, of course. And the formula thing was hammerred out in my (also about 30 year) lifespan.
I will vaccinate my children, absolutely. I *may not* get every brand new vaccine that is developed however, much as I would not get a brand new OS in the first six months of its release. The human body is a tad more complex than an OS, after all. I will also want to be sure that heavy metals are not in the vaccine (which, as I understand, they aren't anymore, but I'm still going to check). Luckily for me, the HPV vaccine will have been out for a good dozen years by the time my soon-to-be-born daughter will have to worry about it. I'm not sure what I'd do if my daughter were of that age now, with the vaccine being new... that would be a tough call. I'd probably risk it because I know first hand how widespread cervical issues are and I know multiple women who have had to have their uterus' removed because of cancerous cervical cancer cells. But I'd be a little nervous about it, still, and I think I would be correct to be nervous.
I do have a hard time telling people they are definitively wrong when we don't know why autism is on the rise, or what the heck is up with fibro myalgia or other relatively new but fairly widespread phenomena which would indicate a likewise new and fairly widespread variable is the cause; we can be pretty sure it's not exposure to wood, dirt, or organic vegetables for example, since those are variables that haven't changed that much. Obviously you can go too far with restricting exposure to "new stuff" and I don't go that far there, I don't eat totally organic, I believe in vaccination and I use plastic and computers and cell phones and all that stuff all the time.
But in many cases, if I'm given a choice I"ll go for something "natural", simply because that was "tested' a lot longer than the FDA, or any consumer protection agency could ever have tested anything. If not, I'll shrug and move on, we're resilient creatures. But I understand people who choose a different level of risk than I do. I'm comfortable with just reducing my exposure as I can, and eating as naturally as I can without major inconvenience.
Nothing I said implied "old" is "better". However, if you cannot accept the basic facts of science's own limitations, especially CURRENT science's own limitations, then you are advocating a completely irrational position.
I am not at all saying all vaccines are bad, or that we should go back to raw meat, or any other such ridiculous notion. Life is a bit more nuanced than that though, which is all I'm trying to say and which you seem to need to deny. the examples of "scientific understanding" leading people to make what turned out to be horrible decisions are numerous, and continue to this day. Applying a bit of independent thought may not be scientifically rigorous, but that doesn't mean it's always wrong either. It may not be *absolutely predictably* right or wrong, but then, not everything has to be... and here in reality, neither is scientific understanding as it applies to culture at large in most cases. At some level perhaps that's not true, but what is passed off as "scientific understanding" to us layman is fairly frequently very incomplete or misinterpeted at least, and that's the "scientific understanding" we are asked to be "credulous" about.
Look, a lot of "alternative medicine" are a bunch of hucksters, sure. Though a lot of it isn't too... it sure took western medicine awhile to figure out that acupuncture, for example, has any benefits (and I believe it still can't explain why it does, can it?). So prior to what, 1990 or whatever, how would you know?
Sometimes, you DO have to go with "what you feel". Cause, you know, we haven't figured it all out yet. And pay attention to what you're feeling, and try to figure out if it's real or not. And heck, if it isn't, the placebo effect is still pretty handy sometimes.
One thing is for sure though... MOST alternative medicine techniques are at worst benign. Water potions, aromatherapy, meditation... you're not going to hurt anything doing these things. At worst you delayed real treatment for awhile trying something else out. That is all you can say about most of it.
Compare that to pills, and medical treatments in general. Pills almost all have unpleasant side effects (ask any pharmacist... many times, people come back to take pills to fix the stuff the first pills broke). 30% misdiagnosis rates. Surgery and anesthesia risks, addictions, you name it.
Hardly "benign". Necessary sometimes, sure, glad to have it around, use it when needed. But not the be all, end all of the story, and there is more to health than you'll find in a lab, a pill, or a doctor's office (as we know them today).
Seriously. Shit, 30 years ago women were still being told baby formula was better than breast milk, and that giving birth was a medical procedure that had to involve heavily drugging the mother (and baby) and pulling the infant out with forceps.
That was "progress".
But you know, having any distrust of the medical establishment, or any desire to have more than a few years of tests determine if some new concoction is ok enough to INJECT INTO A FUCKING CHILD, and you're obviously a raving lunatic.
Certainly, accept the authority of others. without question! Otherwise, you're a luddite. right?
To the others, let me put the plainly. The burden on proof is on the legitimacy of whatever you are trying to sell me and put in my child. Not on my skepticism of it. Ok? And that burden of proof is both high and onerous, because we were born with most of what we need to survive, and augementations to that I want evaluated very heavily before just assuming we've figured out something better than a few million years of evolution.
Science is awesome, I love it to death, and I cheer on discoveries like mad. But have some perspective people. Until we have a damn good answer for what causes fibro myalgia, rising cancer rates, etc, then a dose of skepticism is a potential survival trait.
I'm sorry... when did a "benefit" have to be proven to keep something from being made illegal?
What's the benefit of different clothing styles?
What's the benefit of 99% of all entertainment media out there today? Sitcoms? Kids' shows built around product sales?
What's the benefit of Candy?
Seriously... something HAS to be healthy or constructive to be legal now?
How about simply, it's enough that young boys like to play "war", and will, whether with a toy gun or with pointed fingers, until time comes to an end. Violence is a part of our psyche, and allowing people the freedom to explore all aspects of life and their psyched however they, or their parents if they are a minor, see fit is a fundamental part of allowing people to determine for themselves how to live?
Or is it just more important now, that everyone's actions are "correct" by some median, centralized, normative standard?
Useful is not the same as correct. I don't know why you confuse the two. Useful is useful until it isn't; correct is just correct. You can't just redefine words to meet your view.
We don't have "knowledge". We have pretty good approximations. Until you do not have to correct at the extremes, I would put forth that you have not demonstrated true knowledge. Just an approximation, of varying degrees of usefulness.
That's not a bad thing, but to call it "knowledge" just dilutes the purity of the term, and also, I believe, creates a kind of arrogance that is fairly dangerous to clear, flexible, critical thought.
perhaps, but you're still left with a possible conundrum; where does the break point in breeding occur. an individual can't "become incompatible' for breeding; only generations can, but they would have to break interbreeding for past members of their OWN line as well as other branches. This is logically necessary since individuals in two branches can trace back to a common ancestor.
So the theory is fine as long as I could have a child that, for analogy purposes, could breed with other children, but could not breed with, say, my great grand parents. Or great^100 parents, if that makes it easier to swallow. But then we're basically saying you can incrementally get further and further from breeding with an individual, it's not all or nothing. The question is, is that true?
The fact that you "don't understand my question" is exactly why you should be careful about condemning the experience of most people throughout history.
If a framework of belief provides a person a sense of connection, a respect for ancestors, a vision of a future, a comfort, a sense of perspective regarding the person's own small place in our universe, and they find that worthwhile, it is not for you to say they are wrong. You may not see the value in these things, but then that shows only your own limited understanding if that were true. More likely, you get those things another way; but again, it is not for you to say it is "worthless" for others to deviate from your model of living. It may not be useful to science, but that doesn't not rule it "worthless"; worth is subjective.
Also, sometimes waiting for "proof" retards progress. Anyone can wait for proof in order to act. Leaders are people who can act before things are proven, effectively. Should we really discourage it? Does it really have no value?
If you still say that is true, then present the final, scientific arguments for all of the difficulties of society and life so that we may all simply choose the answer that is obviously and logically correct for all cases. Go ahead- I'll wait. Be sure to use ONLY testable assertions. And be sure not to inadvertantly leave out any critical elements to the descionmaking, due to your own limitations of data, reasoning, or perspective.
I'm not saying that all things are equal. Just saying logic and science, while amazing and wonderful and extremely useful tools that I follow carefully and drink up at every opportunity, do not represent the sum total of life. A small amount of respect for the areas of life not yet within the umbrella of "scientific certainty"... which requires some belief to navigate... goes a long way.
I love newton as much as the next guy... use him every day... but he was wrong, plain and simple. He was right enough to be useful in everyday life, but he was actually wrong.
I work in heating systems. People "understand" how they work in the strangest ways. many heating contractors have "proven" their systems work in dozens of installations. But when these are based on false premises, they are still wrong, even if they stumbled upon something that works.
"workable", and "Useful", do not mean "correct". Something can be wrong and still supported by an awful lot of experiments and data.
hell, wasn't there a fellow who refined the calculations of planetary motion that previously "worked" pretty well, but were still wrong?
Most everything we work with is not "correct", of course, just "useful" or "not useful". Correct being the end result. But there is nothing good in throwing mud into that water; "proven to work in a set of assumptions" does not mean "proven to be true".
at what point during "micro evolution" does a progeny become unable to breed with those of its parents' species (since it has become a new species) and how does it procreate at that point to continue its branch?
Say, birds evolved from dinosaurs. Are you saying birds could breed with dinosaurs if they were here today?
If not, how could that possibly be? Can you just get "less likely" to breed with someone of a species you belong to until finally you can't do it at all?
A computer, some microphones, and anyone who understandings mixing in a garage with some rugs on the walls and you've got all the "studio" you need these days. Because of this, there is almost no barrier to entry in recording anymore. The stuff indie bands are turning out, self-financed, sounds better than professionally released CDs from ten or twenty years ago already.
The only thing the "recording industry" can do that most people can't these days is promote. That would be a "promotion industry" though, not a "recording industry". So while the current recording companies may transform, they will not survive unless they do actually transform their focus. Currently they are a "loan sharking, promotion and recording industry" and they have to drop one, I hope they drop another and just do promotion... though perhaps they will continue to entice naive musicians to sign all future rights over to them in exchange for a short term loan for awhile yet to come...
I'm with you for needing a cap, but you picked a very strange example.
Even presuming that you use less emissions flying or boating a load of food from south america to maine than by trucking it... your "analysis' missed the fact that to get from the ship or plane to your store, it STILL NEEDS TO BE TRUCKED.
That distance is presumably similar to the distance Local produce must travel to get to a store.
Therefor you are still saving the energy usage and CO2 production of the entire trip from your local port/airport to the source of the food.
Incident free? Catastrophe free, sure, but hardly "incident free". but you've illustrated exactly the issue: 70 years is nothing. We have to go what, 1500 years without incident to outlast the contamination of one major catastrophe.
Until recently, New Orleans lasted for a few hundred years without major calamities related to flooding. Funny how given a long enough timeline, really unlikely things can happen, huh? And, due to cost concern (though not profit motivation, sure) the safety margin was set at X, which proved less than adequate.
We can not, under any circumstances, allow for that with nuclear plants. New Orleans could be rebuilt after a flood... if a meltdown occurred, and I know it's a big if, but IF... it wouldn't be.
I'm not completely anti-nuclear, and I'm curious to see how pebble bed reactors deal with the waste stream issue, which is potential dealbreaker number two. But the decision is not a "no brainer" and acting like nuclear is completely safe simply shows irrationality. It may be very safe, but it's not completely safe. The question is entirely, what does very safe mean, when the consequences of failure are so high?
Slashdot Mirror
A very limited exploration of the possible effects of taking a new treatment.
if you disagree, please reassure me that after having gone through clinical trials, we have not in fact had recalls or further information regarding practices or treatments come to light that have caused the removal of drugs or elimination of techniques that were previously considered "safe".
I'm sure you won't find many examples to the contrary, right?
Yes, someone has to be the early adopters. It doesn't, however, have to be me.
Testing can be as rigorous as it likes, all bets are still off when it's released into the wild. All testing does is eliminate some really bad things earlier, it doesn't stop all bad things. The body is waaaaaay more complex than anything yet created by us.
Experts disagree my man. You act like there is a universal understanding of everything medical. You discount the inherent bias that any restricted population of people have due to common influences (such as, out of date textbooks, personality/belief structure selection in the choice of occupation in the first place, anything really). Yes, it's *generally* in my best interest to listen to my doctor. But I *also* have to pay attention to my body, and my child, and to question until any concerns I have are addressed. I *also* have to keep in mind that my doctor will, in most cases, be basing at least part of his or her assessment on a believe structure I don't share.
In the case of a brand new biochemical treatment, that is simply not fully possible, because there is no established data on it. My decision may not the same for two different brand new treatments either.
Look at ADHD. we have pumped a significant number of kids full of speed for their entire childhoods now. It was 'normal' and accepted. Now it looks like ADHD may in fact be something you just grow out of. Would it not be better to just work with a developementally different child rather than pounding their developing nervous system with drugs we don't fully understand for 15 years?
Maybe, maybe not, but these are the kinds of choices we have to make. Medicine said "give them the pills". I would say, "no thanks". Is that really unreasonable?
but, according to who? Using what standards? To what end goal?
What if I live in a tough neighborhood, and I WANT my children to understand violence, because they have to live with it?
that's just a random example, but the point is... harmful or not, unless the harm is both obvious and overwhelming (not just "outweighing"), restriction shouldn't even be considered.
Temporary increases in violent feelings I don't think qualify by themselves. If a clear causal relationship between playing Doom and beating your wife is found, that's another thing entirely of course.
I'm not refusing to vaccinate. I refuse to accept that I should be forced to accept BRAND NEW vaccines. There is a big difference there. One is blind rejection in the face of mountains of evidence (though we do still have some rapidly expanding health problems to explain by some method that reaches an awful lot of people, I'm not willing to reject vaccination as a very likely cause as of yet... though I'll feel a hell of a lot better when we figure out whatever the widespread factor is that is contributing to autism, fibro myalgia, cancer rates, etc). IMHO, skepticism of new tech is not only healthy, it's pretty much a requirement if you're going to call yourself a rational human being. You might accept the risk as small, but you're doing so based on belief, just as I am not quite so quick to believe that is true.
as I post elsewhere in this discussion, I don't get an OS the day it's released either. why in the world would I just smile and nod when a brand new medical treatment, especially one that involves viruses or drugs or any other complex biochemical interaction in the body, is shoved down my throat or my child's throat? Especially if the known risk of not vaccinating is small?
Wow, are you that ignorant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidural
This is still very common. It is a drug. So exactly how am I lying?
Wow, I'm not a scientist, and i"m not qualified to read and interpet the studies! Imagine that!
Even if I could, you act like the studies are the be all end all of knowledge. Sorry guy, it's just not that simple. Vaccination is great, and for vaccines that have been around awhile, I have no real problems with them (especially after they addressed the mercury issue, but hey, that's wasn't really a PROBLEM anyway, right?). REQUIRING people to take BRAND NEW ones based only on studies is pretty fucked up though. For anything brand new like that, people should be allowed to assess their own comfort with the risk. A study is a study, real life is not the same thing.
I understand what you're saying and for established procedures, I even agree, but for new procedures, you are asking someone to take a known risk (not doing it) vs what amounts to an unknown risk.. the new procedure.
This is not just a dice game. You actually have to decide what you think the risk is... and no one yet knows, for sure, in the case of new procedures. For people who require scientific knowledge to make a decision, you sure seem to take things on faith pretty easy once a couple of studies say it's ok. Me, I want a couple of studies and some time "in the wild". You know, the lab that really matters.
You can take the arguement of authority if you like, go ahead. However, I realize they are just people, and the data they are drawing from is, at best, incomplete, and this is MY life, MY family, and I have a lot more invested in both of those things than anyone else does.
They are expert advisors, not gods, and not absolute authorities. With a 30% misdiagnosis rate, I think we need to be a little more vigilant. But you just go ahead and do what you're told. that is definitely a more rational position than applying any level of skepticism to new practices and discoveries. I suppose you're an early adopter for everything new, or does it apply only to medicine?
I am hardly exaggerrating the state of birth 30 years ago. Sure, the natural birth movement was gaining steam, but it is still TO THIS DAY considered normal to drug mothers for birth. Not as heavily as it used to be, of course. And the formula thing was hammerred out in my (also about 30 year) lifespan.
I will vaccinate my children, absolutely. I *may not* get every brand new vaccine that is developed however, much as I would not get a brand new OS in the first six months of its release. The human body is a tad more complex than an OS, after all. I will also want to be sure that heavy metals are not in the vaccine (which, as I understand, they aren't anymore, but I'm still going to check). Luckily for me, the HPV vaccine will have been out for a good dozen years by the time my soon-to-be-born daughter will have to worry about it. I'm not sure what I'd do if my daughter were of that age now, with the vaccine being new... that would be a tough call. I'd probably risk it because I know first hand how widespread cervical issues are and I know multiple women who have had to have their uterus' removed because of cancerous cervical cancer cells. But I'd be a little nervous about it, still, and I think I would be correct to be nervous.
I do have a hard time telling people they are definitively wrong when we don't know why autism is on the rise, or what the heck is up with fibro myalgia or other relatively new but fairly widespread phenomena which would indicate a likewise new and fairly widespread variable is the cause; we can be pretty sure it's not exposure to wood, dirt, or organic vegetables for example, since those are variables that haven't changed that much. Obviously you can go too far with restricting exposure to "new stuff" and I don't go that far there, I don't eat totally organic, I believe in vaccination and I use plastic and computers and cell phones and all that stuff all the time.
But in many cases, if I'm given a choice I"ll go for something "natural", simply because that was "tested' a lot longer than the FDA, or any consumer protection agency could ever have tested anything. If not, I'll shrug and move on, we're resilient creatures. But I understand people who choose a different level of risk than I do. I'm comfortable with just reducing my exposure as I can, and eating as naturally as I can without major inconvenience.
Reasonable, no?
Nothing I said implied "old" is "better". However, if you cannot accept the basic facts of science's own limitations, especially CURRENT science's own limitations, then you are advocating a completely irrational position.
I am not at all saying all vaccines are bad, or that we should go back to raw meat, or any other such ridiculous notion. Life is a bit more nuanced than that though, which is all I'm trying to say and which you seem to need to deny. the examples of "scientific understanding" leading people to make what turned out to be horrible decisions are numerous, and continue to this day. Applying a bit of independent thought may not be scientifically rigorous, but that doesn't mean it's always wrong either. It may not be *absolutely predictably* right or wrong, but then, not everything has to be... and here in reality, neither is scientific understanding as it applies to culture at large in most cases. At some level perhaps that's not true, but what is passed off as "scientific understanding" to us layman is fairly frequently very incomplete or misinterpeted at least, and that's the "scientific understanding" we are asked to be "credulous" about.
Look, a lot of "alternative medicine" are a bunch of hucksters, sure. Though a lot of it isn't too... it sure took western medicine awhile to figure out that acupuncture, for example, has any benefits (and I believe it still can't explain why it does, can it?). So prior to what, 1990 or whatever, how would you know?
Sometimes, you DO have to go with "what you feel". Cause, you know, we haven't figured it all out yet. And pay attention to what you're feeling, and try to figure out if it's real or not. And heck, if it isn't, the placebo effect is still pretty handy sometimes.
One thing is for sure though... MOST alternative medicine techniques are at worst benign. Water potions, aromatherapy, meditation... you're not going to hurt anything doing these things. At worst you delayed real treatment for awhile trying something else out. That is all you can say about most of it.
Compare that to pills, and medical treatments in general. Pills almost all have unpleasant side effects (ask any pharmacist... many times, people come back to take pills to fix the stuff the first pills broke). 30% misdiagnosis rates. Surgery and anesthesia risks, addictions, you name it.
Hardly "benign". Necessary sometimes, sure, glad to have it around, use it when needed. But not the be all, end all of the story, and there is more to health than you'll find in a lab, a pill, or a doctor's office (as we know them today).
Seriously. Shit, 30 years ago women were still being told baby formula was better than breast milk, and that giving birth was a medical procedure that had to involve heavily drugging the mother (and baby) and pulling the infant out with forceps.
That was "progress".
But you know, having any distrust of the medical establishment, or any desire to have more than a few years of tests determine if some new concoction is ok enough to INJECT INTO A FUCKING CHILD, and you're obviously a raving lunatic.
Certainly, accept the authority of others. without question! Otherwise, you're a luddite. right?
To the others, let me put the plainly. The burden on proof is on the legitimacy of whatever you are trying to sell me and put in my child. Not on my skepticism of it. Ok? And that burden of proof is both high and onerous, because we were born with most of what we need to survive, and augementations to that I want evaluated very heavily before just assuming we've figured out something better than a few million years of evolution.
Science is awesome, I love it to death, and I cheer on discoveries like mad. But have some perspective people. Until we have a damn good answer for what causes fibro myalgia, rising cancer rates, etc, then a dose of skepticism is a potential survival trait.
"new" is not ALWAYS "improved".
I'm sorry... when did a "benefit" have to be proven to keep something from being made illegal?
What's the benefit of different clothing styles?
What's the benefit of 99% of all entertainment media out there today? Sitcoms? Kids' shows built around product sales?
What's the benefit of Candy?
Seriously... something HAS to be healthy or constructive to be legal now?
How about simply, it's enough that young boys like to play "war", and will, whether with a toy gun or with pointed fingers, until time comes to an end. Violence is a part of our psyche, and allowing people the freedom to explore all aspects of life and their psyched however they, or their parents if they are a minor, see fit is a fundamental part of allowing people to determine for themselves how to live?
Or is it just more important now, that everyone's actions are "correct" by some median, centralized, normative standard?
Useful is not the same as correct. I don't know why you confuse the two. Useful is useful until it isn't; correct is just correct. You can't just redefine words to meet your view.
We don't have "knowledge". We have pretty good approximations. Until you do not have to correct at the extremes, I would put forth that you have not demonstrated true knowledge. Just an approximation, of varying degrees of usefulness.
That's not a bad thing, but to call it "knowledge" just dilutes the purity of the term, and also, I believe, creates a kind of arrogance that is fairly dangerous to clear, flexible, critical thought.
ah, very cool. Thanks for your contribution to my ongoing education, AC.
perhaps, but you're still left with a possible conundrum; where does the break point in breeding occur. an individual can't "become incompatible' for breeding; only generations can, but they would have to break interbreeding for past members of their OWN line as well as other branches. This is logically necessary since individuals in two branches can trace back to a common ancestor.
So the theory is fine as long as I could have a child that, for analogy purposes, could breed with other children, but could not breed with, say, my great grand parents. Or great^100 parents, if that makes it easier to swallow. But then we're basically saying you can incrementally get further and further from breeding with an individual, it's not all or nothing. The question is, is that true?
The fact that you "don't understand my question" is exactly why you should be careful about condemning the experience of most people throughout history.
If a framework of belief provides a person a sense of connection, a respect for ancestors, a vision of a future, a comfort, a sense of perspective regarding the person's own small place in our universe, and they find that worthwhile, it is not for you to say they are wrong. You may not see the value in these things, but then that shows only your own limited understanding if that were true. More likely, you get those things another way; but again, it is not for you to say it is "worthless" for others to deviate from your model of living. It may not be useful to science, but that doesn't not rule it "worthless"; worth is subjective.
Also, sometimes waiting for "proof" retards progress. Anyone can wait for proof in order to act. Leaders are people who can act before things are proven, effectively. Should we really discourage it? Does it really have no value?
If you still say that is true, then present the final, scientific arguments for all of the difficulties of society and life so that we may all simply choose the answer that is obviously and logically correct for all cases. Go ahead- I'll wait. Be sure to use ONLY testable assertions. And be sure not to inadvertantly leave out any critical elements to the descionmaking, due to your own limitations of data, reasoning, or perspective.
I'm not saying that all things are equal. Just saying logic and science, while amazing and wonderful and extremely useful tools that I follow carefully and drink up at every opportunity, do not represent the sum total of life. A small amount of respect for the areas of life not yet within the umbrella of "scientific certainty"... which requires some belief to navigate... goes a long way.
Now look, that's just ridiculous.
I love newton as much as the next guy... use him every day... but he was wrong, plain and simple. He was right enough to be useful in everyday life, but he was actually wrong.
I work in heating systems. People "understand" how they work in the strangest ways. many heating contractors have "proven" their systems work in dozens of installations. But when these are based on false premises, they are still wrong, even if they stumbled upon something that works.
"workable", and "Useful", do not mean "correct". Something can be wrong and still supported by an awful lot of experiments and data.
hell, wasn't there a fellow who refined the calculations of planetary motion that previously "worked" pretty well, but were still wrong?
Most everything we work with is not "correct", of course, just "useful" or "not useful". Correct being the end result. But there is nothing good in throwing mud into that water; "proven to work in a set of assumptions" does not mean "proven to be true".
Really?
Nothing in the entirety of existence means anything worthwhile, to anyone, unless it's testable?
So. What happens when you die? An awful lot of people seem interested in that idea. Maybe someone should test it out, huh?
devil's advocate:
at what point during "micro evolution" does a progeny become unable to breed with those of its parents' species (since it has become a new species) and how does it procreate at that point to continue its branch?
Say, birds evolved from dinosaurs. Are you saying birds could breed with dinosaurs if they were here today?
If not, how could that possibly be? Can you just get "less likely" to breed with someone of a species you belong to until finally you can't do it at all?
That seems fairly strange as well, doesn't it?
I am not a biologist. Just positing an arguement.
You don't need a "studio" or "masters" anymore.
A computer, some microphones, and anyone who understandings mixing in a garage with some rugs on the walls and you've got all the "studio" you need these days. Because of this, there is almost no barrier to entry in recording anymore. The stuff indie bands are turning out, self-financed, sounds better than professionally released CDs from ten or twenty years ago already.
The only thing the "recording industry" can do that most people can't these days is promote. That would be a "promotion industry" though, not a "recording industry". So while the current recording companies may transform, they will not survive unless they do actually transform their focus. Currently they are a "loan sharking, promotion and recording industry" and they have to drop one, I hope they drop another and just do promotion... though perhaps they will continue to entice naive musicians to sign all future rights over to them in exchange for a short term loan for awhile yet to come...
That, is very interesting reading. Thank you for the link... that's... oh god, forgive me... FOOD FOR THOUGHT... aaarrrrrrgggghhhhhh....
What about on the other end, trucks TO the ports and airports?
;) but it just doesn't add up (albeit, intuitively).
Are these ports located next to farms on one end, and cities on the other?
Neither of which matter to me, in a rural area
I'm with you for needing a cap, but you picked a very strange example.
Even presuming that you use less emissions flying or boating a load of food from south america to maine than by trucking it... your "analysis' missed the fact that to get from the ship or plane to your store, it STILL NEEDS TO BE TRUCKED.
That distance is presumably similar to the distance Local produce must travel to get to a store.
Therefor you are still saving the energy usage and CO2 production of the entire trip from your local port/airport to the source of the food.
Incident free? Catastrophe free, sure, but hardly "incident free". but you've illustrated exactly the issue: 70 years is nothing. We have to go what, 1500 years without incident to outlast the contamination of one major catastrophe.
Until recently, New Orleans lasted for a few hundred years without major calamities related to flooding. Funny how given a long enough timeline, really unlikely things can happen, huh? And, due to cost concern (though not profit motivation, sure) the safety margin was set at X, which proved less than adequate.
We can not, under any circumstances, allow for that with nuclear plants. New Orleans could be rebuilt after a flood... if a meltdown occurred, and I know it's a big if, but IF... it wouldn't be.
I'm not completely anti-nuclear, and I'm curious to see how pebble bed reactors deal with the waste stream issue, which is potential dealbreaker number two. But the decision is not a "no brainer" and acting like nuclear is completely safe simply shows irrationality. It may be very safe, but it's not completely safe. The question is entirely, what does very safe mean, when the consequences of failure are so high?