Sounds awfully like Civilization? Why do you think these animals are dead in the first place??
I don't know. That's part of the point of the research. Are you seriously claiming that every extinction of an animal species is due to Man?
You think it might have something to do with so-called 'civilised' morons wiping them out by indiscriminately destroying their habitats?
Certainly, in some cases. And perhaps this research will allow us to understand the exact specifics of which actions of ours leads directly to the extinction of a given species.
You talk about Civilisation like its somehow different from the civilisation that other species have achieved.. Ants, and many other insects, for example, are extremely civilised creatures. Do you know how many ants or termites youd have crawling all over your body right now if they never died?
How many ants have written books? Made art that other ants appreciate? How many ant debates have you watched? What great moral crises has your local colony delt with recently?
Our civilization is quite different, even if only from our own perspective. And if that damns me to being human-centric, oh well. Yes, all of our cultures and history only makes sense from our own perspective, and from life that shares that perspective.
Can an Ant perceive itself? Can an Ant reflect on who and what it is, and decide to change it? Can an Ant wonder about existance itself? Dunno, never talked to an ant. When one decides to strike up conversation, I'll ask.
So yeah, I'd say we're pretty damned different from most animals. There's been interesting work with dolphins and apes that make a good case for treating them better than animals, but it's only suggestive right now.
No, theres no proof at all of what happens after death.. But far more people have died in this world than there are alive today, if this didn't result in some kind of progress, then where do you get off even thinking about employing the word 'civilised'?
I reserve the term civilized for humanity only.
You have not even made a case that death is a requirement for civilization. So are you saying that we have progress because people die?
You want to live forever? Personally, i think thats a stupid notion. A species expanding without limit and never dying is quite obviously unsustainable, yet you think you somehow have the right to persist over others who must necessarily die to ensure your survival. Thats not very civilised now, is it?
Thanks for your opinion. Unsustainable, eh? That would be true, were we limited to this one single planet. But it my opinion, that won't last for much longer (few hundred years at most). Maybe that's unrealistic. Fine. But nothing you have posted here has given any evidence that I, individually, am causing harm to others by my continued existance.
You can live forever, and the method has been employed successfully for millions of years. Its called having kids.
The fact of the matter is that you have to die in order to make room for new people. At least some of whom will be better equipped than you, in every conceivable way.
Offspring is a hollow form of 'immortality'. I am not a DNA sequence.
Oh, it's a 'fact' that some have to die to make room for others, is it? I suppose in a rather amoral fashion, you are correct. I'm sure the American Indians would like to have a word about your 'facts'.
I have posted my position. You claim I'm wrongheaded. Fine, please give evidence and supporting arguments.
If youre so arrogant to believe youre the pinnacle of friggin evolution, that you're right to live somehow outweighs everything else's, then you're gonna be real surprised when that car hits you, your own cancerous cells eat your vital organs, your heart just plain gives out or you get mauled to death by some example of a long dead species that escapes from it's cage.
Of course I'm not the pinnacle of evolution, especially since evolution doesn't really have a goal other than survival. Oh, wait.. living forever, WOULD kind of fit that, wouldn't it?
All kidding aside, no, I don't think any of us are a finished product. Evolution, in fact, is a sequence of changes. Death just happens to be a change I do not personally wish to experience. Just because most life dies doesn't mean that it's a good thing. Changing the way things are is intrinsic to humanity, I'd guess.
I realize that everyone has a different perspective, and I respect yours. I don't take your reply (rebuttal?) as a personal attack in any way. It's easy to see that we could probably exchange reasons for/against using new technology all day - but my main reason for posting is not to argue we should stop using new technologies - only to actually take the time to think before we deploy them and actually take the time to think whether we need them or not.
It's a truth: Nothing is ever decided via debate.:) But, I'm glad there are still those out there who are willing to talk about it. On to the meat.
I think the crux of our disagreement stems from the fact that we're arguing about two different targets. You are targeting society and culture as a whole, while I am entirely focused on the individual. To me, each person has to make the best choice among all options that are available to them at the time. Technology extends and enhances the range of options. I am not saying consequences be damned, but I am saying that the best information available at the time should be the standard of judgement.
The automobile. At the time of it's introduction, there was no foundation and no precedent for anything like it in history. There was no conceivable way anyone could have predicted the changes it brought to the world. Now, we could argue all day about whether or not cars are a good or a bad, but that doesn't change the fact that such a technology was mostly unpredictable.
However, unpredictable doesn't mean, I think, that it shouldn't have been used. I think that prior to actually having the technology around, the best guesses about it's long term results will always be wrong. But lets look at what they did know: An engine that provides useful amounts of power in a compact frame, enabling transportation on an economic scale (though not at first, the original cars were rich men's toys). Pollution? What? It wasn't an issue for them, wasn't "on the radar", I guess you could say.
Finally, I don't believe that we can only proceed from prior knowledge. It is possible to speculate what the consequences of a technology will be. Particularly now that we can examine the introduction of radical change through technology with other technologies that have been introduced. Granted, there's room for error, but it does give one a start. Simply saying "oh, we're not sure what this will do, so we'll throw it in the mix and see if we were right or not" is irresponsible. Maybe you'll look at something and find that it is a potential mixture of good and bad effects - but you think that the good outweighs the bad, okay - at least you've THOUGHT about it. That's all I'm saying.
Well, I have a real-world example for you. There is a group of people, headed by one Thomas Bearden, who claim to have a device (and research) that supports truly immense amounts of electrical power, with only simple equipment. It sounds like magic, and even after reading all the research papers I can find, I'm still skeptical. But if it's true, it will mean nearly unlimited power in almost any size package you want. It may be completely bogus, it may not (the department of energy seems to think he's onto something, though).
Lets assume for a moment that his research is totally accurate. What are the consequences? To give you perspective, imagine something the size of a AAA battery pumping out a kilowatt/hour for ten years with little excess heat.
This technology will change the world. It will enable whole classes of other technologies that are currently unexploited, because of a lack of compact power sources. It'll erase the power economy, and everything dependant on it. It will enable cheap and easy spaceflight, as well as truly awesome weapon systems that are just a dream right now.
The fact that this technology would free me from ever having to pay for an electric bill, or pay for gasoline ever again, makes it worth it for me. I want it. My use of it doesn't harm you. So, should it be introduced or not? What we do know is that it would free us from polluting fossil fuels, but what we don't know is what sorts of new things will then be possible. Some of these new things will be 'harmful', some helpful. Though, no object can ever have an intrinsic moral value (technology depends on how it is used to become 'good' or 'bad').
Okay - off the soapbox. Sorry for the lengthy reply, and slight rambling, but this is an issue that I've thought about a lot - and it just happend to spring up on Slashdot of all places.:)
Never apologize for saying what you think. And I, too, have spent alot of time on this (today I've posted more messages than I have in three years).
However, our technology has so far outstripped our culture that it's not funny. We're still arguing about whether or not it's okay to have abortion (and some about birth control) while we're freezing embryos and working on same-sex parenting and genetic manipulation and cloning and...well, quite a few technologies that we've barely paused to examine the ethical and practical complications of. Frankly, we haven't even dealt with the invention of the car from a cultural perspective. Think about it - how fragile the nuclear family is now that you can be in another state by nightfall and across the country in a day or two.
This is not a personal attack, but it does appear that you feel that 'culture' needs to be preserved at some given point, frozen (or at least slowed) at a given time period. I have an entirely different perspective. Specifically, that individuals change and grow, and will make use of whatever technology that enables them to do the things that they want to, and the culture is merely the collective side-effect of those individual choices.
A car gives the individual freedom. Yes, freedom to ruin families. Also, freedom to get out of bad situations. Freedom to rush someone to a hospital that's ten miles away, and freedom to get away quickly from the scene of a crime.
I honestly cannot assign good or bad labels to any of those actions, because I'm not the person who did them. I can only comment on those actions that directly affect my life. I guess my point is that it is the individual who has to make the best choices that they can, at the time.
We have an insanely bad habit of doing something just because we can. Is it great that we can clone sheep? Yeah, it's really cool. Is it something we should be practicing...um, I dunno. I really don't, and I doubt that anyone else really does either. But we are. Should we be cloning extinct animals. Maybe. Should we be worrying about why they're extinct in the first place? I'd say so. I bet it has a lot to do with the fact that we didn't stop to think of the consequences of our actions
I agree with you completely that we should be studying why species become extinct, but I think one (of many) useful tool in that investigation would be the analysis of a living member of that species.
But I have another issue with this statement: I am not a collective. I am not your 'we.' What is right for me is not always what is right for you, and my 'rights' to perform said actions stop where your rights (and life) begins. And on that strict basis, judgements have to be made about what I can and cannot do. But like it or not, it has to be based on what we know. I KNOW that breaking into someone's home and stealing their stereo is theft. There's a very direct set of actions that leads to a given state (your no longer having your stereo), and so we judge that theft is wrong, legally and morally (in most situations).
But try this on for size: Assume, for a moment, that the most extreme predictions of chaos theory are accurate, on the macroscale. That a butterfly's flapping really can cause a hurricane. Now, that in mind, every single action that I take, or do not take, has hugely far-reaching consequences for all life on the globe. But, we can't tell what actions will cause what results. So nothing much changes. But then one day, we figure out how to predict such actions. Suddenly, the most ethical action is to change your behavior, because now you KNOW what the consequences are.
The situation is applicable here: If someone invents, say, a very effective stun gun, and all tests show it harmless, but then twenty years later all those who got hit with it develop some strange disease, you would stop using it. But, you never would have found out if you didn't use it in the first place. Is it right to prevent technological progress on these grounds? I don't think so. You may think differently, fine.
Would it be that terrible if we invented something, and then said "yup, it's neat, but we're not quite ready for it yet. Let's shelve it and come back in five years." By all means, we should do research, but you have to consider the consequences of inventions as well as chugging along and spewing out new technologies.
Yes. Firstly, because there is no way to judge the unintended consequences of a new technology. If there was, they wouldn't be unintended consequences, would they?
Second, deliberately preventing someone getting access to technology that could help them better their lives (and realizing they are the only ones who can judge that) is a form of control that I don't feel is really ethical. What if that technology can save lives? You can't know what the consequences are, until it's used.
Here's a funky thought: They went extinct, and now we want to bring them back. That's one HELL of a survival mechanism, isn't? To develop some innate property that makes us want to save them. Man, and I thought humans were devious.
Uh. Meals, and little competition for survival. Mates provided. Controlled enviroment. You know, it sounds awfully like... Civilization! Well, except for the mates part.
What's so wrong about being dead? Okay, that doesn't deserve a rational response, but I'll give you one anyway: We don't know what's after death. Individually, we may think we know, or believe, but there is no real proof of any sort. So the question is this: No matter what you think happens after death, are you willing to bet it's better than life? I'm not. And, I personally think that life is a great thing, and so I believe it should be preserved, always. Our current technology doesn't allow that, but it will someday.
Do I want to live forever? Hell yes. Do I think that life itself is an instrinsically good thing? Yes. And so if someone, who feels as I do, has the resources to bring back a species, what's wrong with doing so? It has fuck-all to do with guilt.
This just screams of going beyond conservation or preserving endangered animals. I am a bit leery of cloning in the first place, but the thought of using it to bring back extinct species is over the top. If these scientists are that concerned with preserving endangered animals, they should be working at the root of the problem. If the species is being threatened by the actions of us humans, then they should be working towards changing the destructive behaviors that are causing their extinction.
Do you think we know why certain species go extinct and others don't? Certainly, habitat destruction is one cause. But it isn't the only one. So bringing back such a species will give us insights into the why's and how's.
Now, you say that they should be working to change the destructive behaviors that caused the extinction in the first place. Well, we can't do that unless we can study a living member of said extinct species. Oh, wait. You ment alter HUMAN behavior. Ahhh, I get it now. You think that some scientist is able to accurately judge "good" and "bad" behavior.
Lets see how many holes I can shoot in that fallacy. First, there is no way to assign objective standards of behavior that are appropriate to everyone. What is murder in America is self-defense in another country. Same issue with just about every other 'behavior' you might name. Oh, you want to go 'deeper' than that? Perhaps you want to change the basic human spirit that produced technological civilization in the first place? We didn't get here peacefully, and it's doubtful that will change anytime soon (nor, do I think, should it).
We are each responsible for our own actions, and also have the right to do what we think is best for ourselves and our loved ones. That may not sit well with some folks. Tough.
This is a prime example of humans assuming that they can 'fix' everything. A species goes extinct, whether it's as a result of our encroaching on nature, or simply natural selection, what is to say that it wasn't meant to happen?
And what is to say it was? It's this sort of precautionary thinking that, if followed rigourously, would stifle all technological and scientific innovation.
The simple fact is that we don't yet have the ability to accurately predict the future, and so we have to make our best guesses in any situation. If those who have the resources want to bring back an extinct species, fine. But it's also their responsibility if anything goes wrong. Plus, in this situation, we also get to learn much more about said species than if we hadn't done anything at all.
Now, one could claim that bringing back an extinct species could endanger us all. I mean, look at what happened with non-native transplants, like Kudzu. Then again, Kudzu didn't result in the end of all life, either.
But, however any action turns out, there is this fact: You cannot conclusively prove that any new thing will do no harm, to anyone, ever.
I personally am rather fond of the current modality of human existance, and I see anyone that believes in or even worse desires such a dramatic and unnecessary change as being at best a foolish idealist and at worst someone unable to accept the reality of their own existance. What other reasons can there be for what amounts to turning yourself into some(one|thing) else? No combination of bio/nano/computing technology is ever going to be me for the simple reason that it will have different boundaries from me, and our idea of self is shaped from these boundaries.
Okay, so it does appear to sound as though you are against the individual's desire for change. What if I *WANT* to change my boundries? Become more than human? What is so wrong with that?
We change all the time, when we learn a new skill or develop a new piece of technology. By doing so, we 'change our boundries'. Changing our bodies and brains, and hence our minds, is nothing more than an extension of technology. And it is pointless to discuss such change in any context other than the individual, since that is ultimately who is going to be driving such change: Does this person want this change? If so, are they willing to pay for it? That's about as far as this question goes.
And as we see from our wonderfully successfull War on Some Drugs, making the technology illegal won't work, it'll only guarentee that the rich are the only ones who use it.
Okay, the technology is called "super-cavatation" due to the bubble of water vapor that surrounds the craft, and that it is this bubble which produces the low drag effect.
So, any system which can create the bubble would work. It just so happens they discovered the effect due to a shock wave, but I don't see why some sort of method to artificially create the bubble (sans high velocity) couldn't be developed.
A similar concept seems to be the aerospike engine, where plasma is generated in the direction of travel to reduce drag. Same principle, different technology (air travel).
So the effect may scale up quite nicely to larger craft. Time and experimentation will tell.
Positive steering is a problem only if velocity cannot drop below a certain level. Find a way to keep the bubble going at low speeds, and turning becomes more managable.
More general navigation issues: Bubbles make noise. Lots of noise, from bass to ultrasonic. Normally, this would rule out sonar. Except that, at least a small portion of the leading edge of the craft will be in contact with water. So, pack your sonar array into that area (yes, probably beyond our current tech). It would give you a small viewing angle, but it's better than nothing.
This is all just from the hip reasoning, and almost certainly has holes in it, but I'm prompted by the constant negativity I continually see when new technologies are announced. I mean, c'mon, where's your sense of wonder? Imagine what might be done with this, play with it, see what comes up.
I've studied their (and others) research far enough to discern that what they are speaking about is not quite what you describe. No, it is not being able to mentally direct the action of a single particle, it is literally interference with random events.
And yes, everyone can do it. Actually, the research is quite interesting in this regard. Those who can do it in the direction of intention (ie: "Make this graph go up") usually have some level of belief in ESP, or characterize their belief in luck as something that is "made".
Those who have no beliefs in either direction usually show a smaller effect, and ironically, those who profess a strong negative belief usually generate results that are opposite of intention (graph does down when they want it up).
Also, the effect size is small. %10 beyond chance expectations.
Finally, they've never found a "Superstar", someone who has a level of ability far beyond the norm.
So on the face of that research alone, it does appear to be an ability that is shared by all conciousness. Whether or not it has anything to do with the structure of the brain is an open question.
So, who would be willing to organize a limited run production of these devices for the community? I'd be willing to pay 700 or so for an Itsy. They seem like near-perfect development platforms, great for working on new interfaces, or adapting them to wearable uses. I want one.. *whine* -Fixer
So, first there was...
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 2
...Information Poisoning, and now this?
Look, information is fundamentally different from material systems: I can make perfect duplicates at will of information.
Applying concepts of Darwinian selection to a theoretical population of memes? Well, considering the nature of memes, wouldn't that make US the selection criteria? "I don't like that, so I'll ignore it." And eventually, due to bit rot, it goes away.
But it's BOGUS. At it's very core. I just don't think we've reached the saturation point yet with all of our various forms of media. And reaching saturation is okay, too.
There is no threat from this. I LIKE having more sources of information, because it gives me more choices. "But the quality is decreasing!" And it will continue to do so. But the greater number of information choices does mean, long term, that there are a greater number of above-average quality sources than there was before. Yes, I'll have to go diggging through a greater mountain of shit to find them.
Slashdot Mirror
Our civilization is quite different, even if only from our own perspective. And if that damns me to being human-centric, oh well. Yes, all of our cultures and history only makes sense from our own perspective, and from life that shares that perspective.
Can an Ant perceive itself? Can an Ant reflect on who and what it is, and decide to change it? Can an Ant wonder about existance itself? Dunno, never talked to an ant. When one decides to strike up conversation, I'll ask.
So yeah, I'd say we're pretty damned different from most animals. There's been interesting work with dolphins and apes that make a good case for treating them better than animals, but it's only suggestive right now.
I reserve the term civilized for humanity only. You have not even made a case that death is a requirement for civilization. So are you saying that we have progress because people die? Thanks for your opinion. Unsustainable, eh? That would be true, were we limited to this one single planet. But it my opinion, that won't last for much longer (few hundred years at most). Maybe that's unrealistic. Fine. But nothing you have posted here has given any evidence that I, individually, am causing harm to others by my continued existance. Offspring is a hollow form of 'immortality'. I am not a DNA sequence.Oh, it's a 'fact' that some have to die to make room for others, is it? I suppose in a rather amoral fashion, you are correct. I'm sure the American Indians would like to have a word about your 'facts'.
I have posted my position. You claim I'm wrongheaded. Fine, please give evidence and supporting arguments.
Of course I'm not the pinnacle of evolution, especially since evolution doesn't really have a goal other than survival. Oh, wait.. living forever, WOULD kind of fit that, wouldn't it? All kidding aside, no, I don't think any of us are a finished product. Evolution, in fact, is a sequence of changes. Death just happens to be a change I do not personally wish to experience. Just because most life dies doesn't mean that it's a good thing. Changing the way things are is intrinsic to humanity, I'd guess.I think the crux of our disagreement stems from the fact that we're arguing about two different targets. You are targeting society and culture as a whole, while I am entirely focused on the individual. To me, each person has to make the best choice among all options that are available to them at the time. Technology extends and enhances the range of options. I am not saying consequences be damned, but I am saying that the best information available at the time should be the standard of judgement.
The automobile. At the time of it's introduction, there was no foundation and no precedent for anything like it in history. There was no conceivable way anyone could have predicted the changes it brought to the world. Now, we could argue all day about whether or not cars are a good or a bad, but that doesn't change the fact that such a technology was mostly unpredictable.
However, unpredictable doesn't mean, I think, that it shouldn't have been used. I think that prior to actually having the technology around, the best guesses about it's long term results will always be wrong. But lets look at what they did know: An engine that provides useful amounts of power in a compact frame, enabling transportation on an economic scale (though not at first, the original cars were rich men's toys). Pollution? What? It wasn't an issue for them, wasn't "on the radar", I guess you could say.
Well, I have a real-world example for you. There is a group of people, headed by one Thomas Bearden, who claim to have a device (and research) that supports truly immense amounts of electrical power, with only simple equipment. It sounds like magic, and even after reading all the research papers I can find, I'm still skeptical. But if it's true, it will mean nearly unlimited power in almost any size package you want. It may be completely bogus, it may not (the department of energy seems to think he's onto something, though).Lets assume for a moment that his research is totally accurate. What are the consequences? To give you perspective, imagine something the size of a AAA battery pumping out a kilowatt/hour for ten years with little excess heat.
This technology will change the world. It will enable whole classes of other technologies that are currently unexploited, because of a lack of compact power sources. It'll erase the power economy, and everything dependant on it. It will enable cheap and easy spaceflight, as well as truly awesome weapon systems that are just a dream right now.
The fact that this technology would free me from ever having to pay for an electric bill, or pay for gasoline ever again, makes it worth it for me. I want it. My use of it doesn't harm you. So, should it be introduced or not? What we do know is that it would free us from polluting fossil fuels, but what we don't know is what sorts of new things will then be possible. Some of these new things will be 'harmful', some helpful. Though, no object can ever have an intrinsic moral value (technology depends on how it is used to become 'good' or 'bad').
Never apologize for saying what you think. And I, too, have spent alot of time on this (today I've posted more messages than I have in three years).A car gives the individual freedom. Yes, freedom to ruin families. Also, freedom to get out of bad situations. Freedom to rush someone to a hospital that's ten miles away, and freedom to get away quickly from the scene of a crime.
I honestly cannot assign good or bad labels to any of those actions, because I'm not the person who did them. I can only comment on those actions that directly affect my life. I guess my point is that it is the individual who has to make the best choices that they can, at the time.
I agree with you completely that we should be studying why species become extinct, but I think one (of many) useful tool in that investigation would be the analysis of a living member of that species.But I have another issue with this statement: I am not a collective. I am not your 'we.' What is right for me is not always what is right for you, and my 'rights' to perform said actions stop where your rights (and life) begins. And on that strict basis, judgements have to be made about what I can and cannot do. But like it or not, it has to be based on what we know. I KNOW that breaking into someone's home and stealing their stereo is theft. There's a very direct set of actions that leads to a given state (your no longer having your stereo), and so we judge that theft is wrong, legally and morally (in most situations).
But try this on for size: Assume, for a moment, that the most extreme predictions of chaos theory are accurate, on the macroscale. That a butterfly's flapping really can cause a hurricane. Now, that in mind, every single action that I take, or do not take, has hugely far-reaching consequences for all life on the globe. But, we can't tell what actions will cause what results. So nothing much changes. But then one day, we figure out how to predict such actions. Suddenly, the most ethical action is to change your behavior, because now you KNOW what the consequences are.
The situation is applicable here: If someone invents, say, a very effective stun gun, and all tests show it harmless, but then twenty years later all those who got hit with it develop some strange disease, you would stop using it. But, you never would have found out if you didn't use it in the first place. Is it right to prevent technological progress on these grounds? I don't think so. You may think differently, fine.
Yes. Firstly, because there is no way to judge the unintended consequences of a new technology. If there was, they wouldn't be unintended consequences, would they?Second, deliberately preventing someone getting access to technology that could help them better their lives (and realizing they are the only ones who can judge that) is a form of control that I don't feel is really ethical. What if that technology can save lives? You can't know what the consequences are, until it's used.
Here's a funky thought: They went extinct, and now we want to bring them back. That's one HELL of a survival mechanism, isn't? To develop some innate property that makes us want to save them. Man, and I thought humans were devious.
Uh. Meals, and little competition for survival. Mates provided. Controlled enviroment. You know, it sounds awfully like... Civilization! Well, except for the mates part.
What's so wrong about being dead? Okay, that doesn't deserve a rational response, but I'll give you one anyway: We don't know what's after death. Individually, we may think we know, or believe, but there is no real proof of any sort. So the question is this: No matter what you think happens after death, are you willing to bet it's better than life? I'm not. And, I personally think that life is a great thing, and so I believe it should be preserved, always. Our current technology doesn't allow that, but it will someday.
Do I want to live forever? Hell yes. Do I think that life itself is an instrinsically good thing? Yes. And so if someone, who feels as I do, has the resources to bring back a species, what's wrong with doing so? It has fuck-all to do with guilt.
Now, you say that they should be working to change the destructive behaviors that caused the extinction in the first place. Well, we can't do that unless we can study a living member of said extinct species. Oh, wait. You ment alter HUMAN behavior. Ahhh, I get it now. You think that some scientist is able to accurately judge "good" and "bad" behavior.
Lets see how many holes I can shoot in that fallacy. First, there is no way to assign objective standards of behavior that are appropriate to everyone. What is murder in America is self-defense in another country. Same issue with just about every other 'behavior' you might name. Oh, you want to go 'deeper' than that? Perhaps you want to change the basic human spirit that produced technological civilization in the first place? We didn't get here peacefully, and it's doubtful that will change anytime soon (nor, do I think, should it).
We are each responsible for our own actions, and also have the right to do what we think is best for ourselves and our loved ones. That may not sit well with some folks. Tough.
The simple fact is that we don't yet have the ability to accurately predict the future, and so we have to make our best guesses in any situation. If those who have the resources want to bring back an extinct species, fine. But it's also their responsibility if anything goes wrong. Plus, in this situation, we also get to learn much more about said species than if we hadn't done anything at all.
Now, one could claim that bringing back an extinct species could endanger us all. I mean, look at what happened with non-native transplants, like Kudzu. Then again, Kudzu didn't result in the end of all life, either.
But, however any action turns out, there is this fact: You cannot conclusively prove that any new thing will do no harm, to anyone, ever.
We change all the time, when we learn a new skill or develop a new piece of technology. By doing so, we 'change our boundries'. Changing our bodies and brains, and hence our minds, is nothing more than an extension of technology. And it is pointless to discuss such change in any context other than the individual, since that is ultimately who is going to be driving such change: Does this person want this change? If so, are they willing to pay for it? That's about as far as this question goes.
And as we see from our wonderfully successfull War on Some Drugs, making the technology illegal won't work, it'll only guarentee that the rich are the only ones who use it.
Okay, the technology is called "super-cavatation" due to the bubble of water vapor that surrounds the craft, and that it is this bubble which produces the low drag effect.
So, any system which can create the bubble would work. It just so happens they discovered the effect due to a shock wave, but I don't see why some sort of method to artificially create the bubble (sans high velocity) couldn't be developed.
A similar concept seems to be the aerospike engine, where plasma is generated in the direction of travel to reduce drag. Same principle, different technology (air travel).
So the effect may scale up quite nicely to larger craft. Time and experimentation will tell.
Positive steering is a problem only if velocity cannot drop below a certain level. Find a way to keep the bubble going at low speeds, and turning becomes more managable.
More general navigation issues: Bubbles make noise. Lots of noise, from bass to ultrasonic. Normally, this would rule out sonar. Except that, at least a small portion of the leading edge of the craft will be in contact with water. So, pack your sonar array into that area (yes, probably beyond our current tech). It would give you a small viewing angle, but it's better than nothing.
This is all just from the hip reasoning, and almost certainly has holes in it, but I'm prompted by the constant negativity I continually see when new technologies are announced. I mean, c'mon, where's your sense of wonder? Imagine what might be done with this, play with it, see what comes up.
I've studied their (and others) research far enough to discern that what they are speaking about is not quite what you describe. No, it is not being able to mentally direct the action of a single particle, it is literally interference with random events.
And yes, everyone can do it. Actually, the research is quite interesting in this regard. Those who can do it in the direction of intention (ie: "Make this graph go up") usually have some level of belief in ESP, or characterize their belief in luck as something that is "made".
Those who have no beliefs in either direction usually show a smaller effect, and ironically, those who profess a strong negative belief usually generate results that are opposite of intention (graph does down when they want it up).
Also, the effect size is small. %10 beyond chance expectations.
Finally, they've never found a "Superstar", someone who has a level of ability far beyond the norm.
So on the face of that research alone, it does appear to be an ability that is shared by all conciousness. Whether or not it has anything to do with the structure of the brain is an open question.
So, who would be willing to organize a limited run production of these devices for the community? I'd be willing to pay 700 or so for an Itsy.
They seem like near-perfect development platforms, great for working on new interfaces, or adapting them to wearable uses. I want one.. *whine*
-Fixer
Look, information is fundamentally different from material systems: I can make perfect duplicates at will of information.
Applying concepts of Darwinian selection to a theoretical population of memes? Well, considering the nature of memes, wouldn't that make US the selection criteria? "I don't like that, so I'll ignore it." And eventually, due to bit rot, it goes away.
But it's BOGUS. At it's very core. I just don't think we've reached the saturation point yet with all of our various forms of media. And reaching saturation is okay, too.
There is no threat from this. I LIKE having more sources of information, because it gives me more choices. "But the quality is decreasing!" And it will continue to do so. But the greater number of information choices does mean, long term, that there are a greater number of above-average quality sources than there was before. Yes, I'll have to go diggging through a greater mountain of shit to find them.