The article doesn't make any comparisons involving Athenians, it's just an example. Rather, claims are advanced regarding any human from 2,000 to 6,000 years ago on the basis of current knowledge in molecular genetics.
The article says, "I do not mean to imply something special about this time in history or the location, but would also make this wager for the ancient inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India or the Americas of perhaps 2,000 to 6,000 years ago."
Right or wrong, the arguments themselves derive from current knowledge of molecular biology.
I've often wondered how the rate of such disorders has changed since the invention of alcohol. If it was significantly higher in the middle ages they could even be partly responsible for how short people were.
Actually the final lines of the article are a paean to just those factors as ensuring that "the sciences have come so far in the past hundred years that we can safely predict that the accelerating rate of knowledge accumulation within our intellectually robust society will lead to the solution of this potentially very difficult problem by socially and morally acceptable means."
Actually the letter indicates that we should keep calm and carry on because increasing knowledge over the next 100-200 years will furnish a scientifically and morally acceptable solution. Really, he says that right at the end.
Definitely partially true at minimum. I've seen people get out of party ordinance citations and moving violations just by virtue of bringing up their cop dads.
Good point, since there's no such thing as the EFF, ACLU or any of the many firms specializing in protecting people against predatory business practices.
I agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a finite supply. If the price is low and demand is high, then that supply will dwindle. The state can make rules about business, but it can't change the reality of finite resources.
I think you're right. The sentence is confusing as written because it seems to say "a lot of people reexamine their beliefs and then continue [with those same beliefs] but few switch religions." I guess I'm just overly sensitive to the implications of that conjunction (i.e. expecting a more contradictory second point).
I'm sure your correct on the last point, though is an Aquinan Christian, say, not an atheist? They simply argue that there must be a first cause of some sort and entitle this cause "god." In other words, what differentiates something called God from any spiritual concept?
In regards to your first point, an atheist can certainly be spiritual. The feeling of connectedness with the world, a proud and selfless love for humanity, or so-called peak experience are all essentially spiritual concepts espoused by many self-identified atheists.
It's something I particularly remember from reading The Crucible in high school English. IIRC while the elect are basically guaranteed heaven, the rest still have a chance.
Policies should have an empirical basis. If they do not, then they are policies which will by definition have either no effect or unintended effects only.
Slashdot Mirror
Waaaaaaaay less. There are professionally raised children now.
The article doesn't make any comparisons involving Athenians, it's just an example. Rather, claims are advanced regarding any human from 2,000 to 6,000 years ago on the basis of current knowledge in molecular genetics.
The hypothesis is not based on anthropology, archaeology or any surviving canon of writing. Right or wrong, it is based on modern molecular genetics.
The article says, "I do not mean to imply something special about this time in history or the location, but would also make this wager for the ancient inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India or the Americas of perhaps 2,000 to 6,000 years ago."
Right or wrong, the arguments themselves derive from current knowledge of molecular biology.
100% of people would have to reproduce for it to be otherwise.
Actually it would have made them taste less good.
I've often wondered how the rate of such disorders has changed since the invention of alcohol. If it was significantly higher in the middle ages they could even be partly responsible for how short people were.
Actually the final lines of the article are a paean to just those factors as ensuring that "the sciences have come so far in the past hundred years that we can safely predict that the accelerating rate of knowledge accumulation within our intellectually robust society will lead to the solution of this potentially very difficult problem by socially and morally acceptable means."
I think with the exception of slavery all of those have been dramatically reduced. GP never said they were eradicated.
Actually the article's claims are entirely based on analysis of genetic correlates of mental retardation.
Actually the letter indicates that we should keep calm and carry on because increasing knowledge over the next 100-200 years will furnish a scientifically and morally acceptable solution. Really, he says that right at the end.
Definitely partially true at minimum. I've seen people get out of party ordinance citations and moving violations just by virtue of bringing up their cop dads.
Good point, since there's no such thing as the EFF, ACLU or any of the many firms specializing in protecting people against predatory business practices.
Shooting at random passersby is evil even if you miss. Selling counterfeit DVDs is probably neutral (chaotic neutral).
Yeah, it's pretty pathetic. An advanced civilization would be capable of rehabilitating people much more quickly.
Ding ding ding.
I agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a finite supply. If the price is low and demand is high, then that supply will dwindle. The state can make rules about business, but it can't change the reality of finite resources.
Obviously the import is with regard to indoor cultivation of flowering plants.
Well, that's a little odd. One doesn't choose to be racist because a lot of non-racists are assholes.
I think you're right. The sentence is confusing as written because it seems to say "a lot of people reexamine their beliefs and then continue [with those same beliefs] but few switch religions." I guess I'm just overly sensitive to the implications of that conjunction (i.e. expecting a more contradictory second point).
Agreed...though what I was going for was more jocular. Don't believe in natural selection? Only penicillin for you!
I'm sure your correct on the last point, though is an Aquinan Christian, say, not an atheist? They simply argue that there must be a first cause of some sort and entitle this cause "god." In other words, what differentiates something called God from any spiritual concept?
In regards to your first point, an atheist can certainly be spiritual. The feeling of connectedness with the world, a proud and selfless love for humanity, or so-called peak experience are all essentially spiritual concepts espoused by many self-identified atheists.
It's something I particularly remember from reading The Crucible in high school English. IIRC while the elect are basically guaranteed heaven, the rest still have a chance.
You know quite well that's not what I said.
Policies should have an empirical basis. If they do not, then they are policies which will by definition have either no effect or unintended effects only.
Tim Berners-Lee is British.