This is an extension I found a few days ago, and though YMMV in the few days I've been using it it works pretty damned well (in the latest 1.5 RC to boot!) Enjoy!
Re: "in Europe" - Yes, yes because I'm speaking to you from Europe (ope, wait, per a parent post, nope, I'm in AUSTRALIA. I can see why you can support Bush... you miss important details left, right and center). New News Flash - most of the world is beginning to hate the US too. Not just Europe, and well the Middle East already hated us (so I'll cede that one to you). And the devil Iraq? We have "our" devils too (Saudi Arabia, anyone? Or do "bitches" not deserve rights?) Pot, meet kettle.
Re: coalition of the willing Case in point: Palau. I've been to Palau twice (and they are one of the so called "coalition of the willing"). Beautiful place, truly, and I hope to go back again within the year. It's home to about 20,000 people (twenty thousand, that's not a typo) But Palau, autonomous since 1994 is pretty much one of the US's UN bitches. They have no army of their own, not did they do anything but sign on as part of the "coalition of the willing" to appease the US. They are more typical of the "coalition" then atypical. Very few countries in the "coalition" provided anything of substance (boots on the ground, etc), and the "coalition" members have been dropping like flys. I don't even think Fox "News" refers to it anymore!? The "coalition of the willing" was never anything more then a sad joke.
Re: Cali and the rest of the fruits and nuts, Yea, Dems lost big in NJ and Virginia (oh shit, there's missing those details again, maybe you should tune into something OTHER then Fox "News" every now and then?). Besides, wait till next year...
Re: smart, learned and wise people support Bush, I don't care how smart you think your clergy is, you should think for yourself!
Re: Belgium, read the title =)
PS - Thanks for your opening tirade, and how it proves my point so very methodically!
This is exactly what I was going to suggest (but some dumb ass modders downgraded both threads that mention it!?) Just in case the parent falls off, here is the URL.
Despite what the parent says, you DO NOT NEED TO PUT THIS ON A THUMBDRIVE! All it really equates to is a fully preconfigured and compartimentalized "install" of OOo. Need to update it? No worries, roll out a new version (or a diff) of the changed files. Everything is housed under the one directory.
I use the portable version of FireFox and Thunderbird for myself and the inlaws because you can always guarentee that you've got all of the config files and user data (bookmarks and emails in their cases) under the one folder, so backups and updates are 100x easier (least for me). YMMV, but it's worht a look!!
Did you hear that "whooshing" sound? That was the joke flying over your head (maybe you're used to the sound by now?). I'm from Cali (not an Aussie, jackass, least not yet), I was simply making a joke that really only Aussies (and maybe some Kiwi's and Limey's) would get.
"Language"? "LANGUAGE"?! It's called "English" for a reason, not "American". Bush has done the most damage for us Americans internationally (using his own "language" along the way), but you and yours is the second leading reason Americans are considered brash assholes internationally (thanks for that, BTW!). Just because you believe the USA is the (only) land of milk and honey doesn't mean the whole of the rest of the world is some 3rd world shit hole (besides, I've been to some nice 3rd world "shit holes"). Contrary to your belief, there is more then one culture in the world. I'd welcome you to experience some of them, but really you'd just help to give Americans an increasingly bad name abroad.
Here's one more reagional American-ism for you: Pop = Soda Pop = Soda = Coke. Depending on where you're at in the USA, each term may or may not be reconized (save "coke"). Just as the parent was mentioning with flip-flops.
Props for not AC'ing though! Least you can sack up!
[and now for the REAL translation... thongs = flip-flops, togs = swim suit, sunnies = sun glasses, and dacks = underwear...from a Cali lad caught in the land of Oz.]
("State" as in government, not the US of A "states")
There is a Central American country that also has made VoIP illegal because of their interest in the state run/owned TelCo. I'm not certain if they have implemented anything other then laws around its use in country, but China is not the first to do this.
Irony: 1a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit1. 2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain). b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic. 3. Dramatic irony. 4. Socratic irony.
Thats' one of the/. editors job's. Alongs with re-posting stories ad nausesm, there also their two ensure that grammer (and upon occasion speling) is held in compleat contempt.
More like grapes and tomatoes, but what do I know? I just proved you wrong and you choose to focus on nonsense. Win98 = Antiquated OS. NT4 = Antiquated OS. How bout you burn some karma AC and show your face.
You must be right! That's why big businesses instantly apply patches and buy upgrades as soon as they are made available! Ope, wait... some of us have worked in the real world and know that sometimes, just sometimes your predecessor's predecessor wrote some code under the Document Object Model (or Team Services, or GenericDb, or god know what other shitty technology has been plugged out over the last 10+ years) that simply doesn't play nice under newer versions of the OS because of drivers or who knows what.
We've got some Document Object Model stuff that runs only on an NT4 box because the newer Oracle drivers required on anything after NT4 simply will not play nice with the DOM shit. So there you go... not Win98 specific, but there's an example of a custom piece of (shitty) business software that won't run on anything but an even more antiquated OS then Win98.
...If you're buying a "used" Win98 license (which is no longer supported, right?), then it is *DEFINITLY* not in "as good of condition" as it was "new" (unpatched vulnerabilities, no new IE for you, etc, etc). You could make the same argument for Win2000, et la if you wanted to push it (not that I'd go quite that far).
When it gets down to it, couldn't vulnerabilities be analogous to dents and dings (or major engine trouble)? I know my Win2000 server keeps hanging on Microsoft's recent DirectX v9 patch, if that's not the same as a thrown rod, I donno what is (sure, she still runs, but you're only going to get more damage until it gets "repaired")!
Firstly... I whole heartly agree with your points. But, as was mentioned in another thread here on this story, Linux needs a unitified install method. If Linux had that, then the "HowTo's" could be rolled into installers and noone would have to run all over YaST and the command line to get something working. If it were more like "download this EXE and follow the prompts" where it could then ask questions like "point me at your Windows WLAN Card Drivers" and then you'd be past Win95.
Course this would be moot if there were linux drivers, right? But as you also mentioned, thus far many Linux drivers assume that "you are at least this smart" to install it (my Linux ATI drivers, for example... So my latest kernal didn't come with the source code... how do it get that...). I suppose more users like me (nerds who enjoy the odd hw/sw issue) asking for Linux support then it'll get better, but there are things WE can do as well I believe. Starting with nicer application names (what the hell does "NDIS" mean anyway!? And "abcde" is a what? Oh, a CD ripper, I guess I should just know that, huh?).
...oh, and don't even get me started on getting my touchpad to "work" (hand editing a config file per SuSE's support pages, then the bastard get overwritten [and loosing the hand-config] by YaST the next time I tinker with other settings - AAARRRGGG!)
After ranting for many years about never upgrading past Windows 2000 (mainly due to having to call MS should you need to reinstall, etc) I finally had to put my money where my mouth was when I purchased a new laptop a few months ago (eMachines m6805, AMD64). To make a long story short - I had a buddy help me install SuSE 9.3 on it and I've been on the penguin at home ever since.
What I have seen from a long time windows user perspective is this: functionality and abilities (and stability) is far greater on (SuSE 9.3) Linux then I ever experienced even under Windows 2000. The problem is the "Win95"-esque problems... such as getting my wireless networking card to work. Now fair enough... I had/have these issues with Windows upon an occasion as well, and I can work my way thru them faster then on Linux simply because I've got ump-teen years experience under Win. My gripes come when I have to follow quite esoteric HowTo's to get my gear to work (or to get this thingy to install, or, or, or).
Most times, I'll get whatever widget I need to working thanks to 2-3 of these HowTo's (mainly because 9.3 is a popular distro). But if I were unlucky enough to be one of the first people with problem 'X' I know I'd be screwed. Just the number of widgets and command line prompts and whatnot I had to tinker with to get my onboard WLAN card working was stunning. Then, after it was all said and done, I still couldn't get to websites 'cause the router didn't have valid DNS IP's configured (Linux seems to be a bit "bitchier" when it comes to certain things). Thankfully I picked up on this before blaming the card!
Now... I'm happy with SuSE/Linux and I cannot ever seeing myself turning back, but I'm a nerd that enjoys the occasional hw/sw challenge (something I've not had on a windows box in probably 3+ years). But for Joe Sixpack? We (as in the all of us, or the royal... take your pick) need to bring Linux's usability up past Win95, because in my opinion, that is exactly where (SuSE 9.3) Linux is currently at.
"It's an alternative fuel that is friendly for the environment. But it's complete nonsense to suggest dead cats. I've never used cats and would never think of that. At most the odd toad may have jumped in."
Well put! In the end, it's that "self" manipulation that is a bit scary to me (and I feel is happening now on a far lower scale with invitro, etc.). I think nature is better at the manipulation then we could be (or, maybe will be after a very long time [and a few fuckups along the way]). I worry about the blowing up thing, but also the "oops, we needed that allele" thing too =)
See Gattaca, The Island, and look at genetically engineered (and patented, and "self destructing") seeds, cows (not self destructing), etc. Monsanto won't give a shit about the hazard of a "mono-culture" until it hits their bottom line.
Best of all, I'm actually an optimist (no, really =)!
I am aware of the "bullet points" of the relationship between the (seemingly detrimental) sickle-cell anemia and malaria. And I am well aware that a disadvantage today my very well be an advantage tomorrow (or have been an advantage yesterday). In my mind it's like the relationship between intelligence and insanity. "You're either incredibly insane or insanely intelligent". Depends on your point of view and or your current situation.
If WE choose to fuck with evolution by selecting for things that WE consider more perfect (smarter, stronger, less disease in our understanding) then WE start to walk through doors and close off areas that may be necessary someday.
Funny, in the end we are yelling the same point I think. I feel that WE are fucking with evolution by US deciding who can (or cannot) procreate. So I fully agree with you there. Yet I disagree that we should do all we can to forward every genetic line we can simply because we have the technology to do so. But if we start to impose an artificial "natural" environment to further progress toward a more perfect being then we are only setting ourselves down an artificial evolutionary path. I couldn't agree more, yet I believe that with the extensive use of our technology, we're simply imposing an artificial "artificial" environment on ourselves.
I came to the realization last night as I was trying to go to sleep that we are disagreeing on a periphery topic. As I mentioned in another post, it seems that "you" (the collective you, not "you" you) have more faith in the system then I do. You have faith that Merck and Pfizer will always be there, I don't. I believe that in the future, given a large enough jolt such technologies will be out of reach for a generation or two (nuclear winter, a flu pandemic, the fall of "Rome", or simply if you currently live in rural China) your current "environment" could very well be out of reach for a while. And I guess in the end, that is the difference in our argument.
Really, thanks for the intelligent banter! I love a good clean debate with someone on the opposite side of the fence! You have logical reasons why you believe what you believe, just as I do. With discussions such as these we can each learn from one another and possibly in the end we are not as far apart as we once thought (or once were). The world needs more of these discussions, not less! Thanks again!
I defined "fitness" for the benefit of this discussion because my view of it was questioned. So with that I thought the discussion could benefit from me placing more of a firm view of what I intended the word "fitness" to mean in that context. This is in no way defining my own language, as you so claim. It is simply an effort to forward the debate. Think of how President Clinton "parsed" the English language during the Lewinsky trial. You expose your own intellectual deficiencies when you claim that I'm attempting to "make up my own language". (Ok, that was a bit low, but my own intellectual deficiencies made it so that I simply couldn't resist that cheap shot!)
That is emphatically and obviously false, unless you have some reason to believe that reproductive assistance technology will become less available in the future.
Yes, I do believe that in the future, given a large enough jolt such technologies will be out of reach for a generation or two (nuclear winter, a flu pandemic, or simply if you currently live in rural China) your current "enviroment" could very well be out of reach for a while. As I mentioned in another post, it seems that "you" (the collective you, not "you" you) have more faith in the system then I do. You have faith that Merck and Pfizer will always be there, I don't. And I guess in the end, that is the difference in our argument.
No, you are NOT supporting that idea. You are claiming that evolution is now moving in a direction (technology required for reproduction) which you don't like. You think that's a negative change? Fine- but it's still a CHANGE, which is all that "evolution" means.
(Agh shit, here I go again "making up my own language...") For me, for the purposes of this discussion, humans playing god is not equal to evolution. Are we "evolving"? Yes, but seemingly only in the directions that *we* deem. I cease to see it as "evolution" when the creature itself is manifesting its own destiny. But yes, I concede that we are still "changing", I just don't see our own artificial version of change to be equal to that of evolution. The results are the same, no doubt, but I see the means as more important then the ends.
50% cannot reproduce *on their own*, toss in $5,000 , a clean room, stirrups and a petri dish and volia, 99% could reproduce. And here in lies my point, unnatural selection in what I feel is the truest sense. They "can" reproduce despite their innate inabilities to do so.
Really, everyone... many thanks for all of the intelligent responses and counter-counter responses! They have all required me to rethink my original ephemeral ideas on the subject and forced me to justify my own point of view (or readjust it, as the case may be). What I have gotten it down to is this:
You have a genetic heart condition that is repairable by modern medical surgery. Bada bing, this is no longer a "liability" in your current "environment". You have the good fortune to breed with a significant other who themselves have an affliction that thanks to modern medicine is no longer a "liability". Fast forward a dozen generations or more. Your non-liability affliction as permeated your subsequent generations, just as your significant others has, not to mention the afflictions from all their mates and all their ancestors. Now, some dozen generations later, your offspring have the propensity to have congenital heart defects (no worries, Dr. will fix that), blood that won't clot (woops, that'll complicate the surgery) and any number of other afflictions that aren't bad enough to kill you in one's or two's, but when you have 15 or 16 of them you're kinda fucked.
Ok, so the ones that are "fucked" die off and everybody "wins" because nature has taken the "weak" and only the "strong" with the ability to "survive" in the current "environment" do. Thats all fine and good, but when the "environment" is a house of cards (see New Orleans, could you survive with less then 1 weeks interruption to your "environment"?) I call bullshit.
And here is where we begin to split hairs... "If you can't go a week without insulin (or whatever) and you die, I consider you genetically weak." is quickly countered with "Well, you can't got more then a few minutes without oxygen, so I likewise consider you genetically weak." Which is fair enough, what makes your lines any more or less valid then mine? In the end nothing, but I'd submit that Merck, Pfizer, etc aren't required to make "oxygen" for me, where as they are to make insulin.
Then we get into splitting environmental hairs. Is the US "environment" more valid then the rural Chinese "environment"? Americans* have easy and unabated access to insulin (or whatever) so it's not a liability (yet those in rural China may or may not). (* - by "Americans" I mean Americans with health cover, so those 20mil+ poor bastards without it in the states simply don't count - think of them as a "mulligan"!). So where do we end up? Maybe - "If you wouldn't have made it on 'Lost' then your not genetically strong enough in my book."
I suppose in the end, you (not "you", but those on the opposite side of the fence then I) have much more faith in our system then I do. You have faith that Merck and Pfizer will always be there, I don't. And I guess in the end, that is the difference in our argument.
True, in a "zug zug" / "duh... football" world, most/. people wouldn't make it much past the mouth of the cave. So yes, we wouldn't make it to procreation age, one would imagine.
Yet, my point is more focused on invitro fertilization, making those who physically can't procreate, can. But you do make a valid point, and I am slicing my view of "nature" and "natural" fairly thin I suppose. But I'll make a point I made in another post...
So say you have a genetic heart defect that is surgically repaired (no worries, we have the technology). You pass those traits onto your offspring just like you pass on your blue eyes or brown hair. Now, they simply get their heart defect patched up, but their mother passed blood that doesn't properly coagulate, complicating the surgery.
But I "...forgot that technology and civilization has all but removed natures influence on mankind. The original "intent" or reason for selection was to select for DNA that deals with nature efficiently. Alas, nowadays, no one needs..." a heart that pumps blood! Oh, wait...
At some point I believe you'll end up with more holes then cheese.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an extension I found a few days ago, and though YMMV in the few days I've been using it it works pretty damned well (in the latest 1.5 RC to boot!) Enjoy!
Re: coalition of the willing Case in point: Palau. I've been to Palau twice (and they are one of the so called "coalition of the willing"). Beautiful place, truly, and I hope to go back again within the year. It's home to about 20,000 people (twenty thousand, that's not a typo) But Palau, autonomous since 1994 is pretty much one of the US's UN bitches. They have no army of their own, not did they do anything but sign on as part of the "coalition of the willing" to appease the US. They are more typical of the "coalition" then atypical. Very few countries in the "coalition" provided anything of substance (boots on the ground, etc), and the "coalition" members have been dropping like flys. I don't even think Fox "News" refers to it anymore!? The "coalition of the willing" was never anything more then a sad joke.
Re: Cali and the rest of the fruits and nuts, Yea, Dems lost big in NJ and Virginia (oh shit, there's missing those details again, maybe you should tune into something OTHER then Fox "News" every now and then?). Besides, wait till next year...
Re: smart, learned and wise people support Bush, I don't care how smart you think your clergy is, you should think for yourself!
Re: Belgium, read the title =)
PS - Thanks for your opening tirade, and how it proves my point so very methodically!
Despite what the parent says, you DO NOT NEED TO PUT THIS ON A THUMBDRIVE! All it really equates to is a fully preconfigured and compartimentalized "install" of OOo. Need to update it? No worries, roll out a new version (or a diff) of the changed files. Everything is housed under the one directory.
I use the portable version of FireFox and Thunderbird for myself and the inlaws because you can always guarentee that you've got all of the config files and user data (bookmarks and emails in their cases) under the one folder, so backups and updates are 100x easier (least for me). YMMV, but it's worht a look!!
"Language"? "LANGUAGE"?! It's called "English" for a reason, not "American". Bush has done the most damage for us Americans internationally (using his own "language" along the way), but you and yours is the second leading reason Americans are considered brash assholes internationally (thanks for that, BTW!). Just because you believe the USA is the (only) land of milk and honey doesn't mean the whole of the rest of the world is some 3rd world shit hole (besides, I've been to some nice 3rd world "shit holes"). Contrary to your belief, there is more then one culture in the world. I'd welcome you to experience some of them, but really you'd just help to give Americans an increasingly bad name abroad.
Here's one more reagional American-ism for you: Pop = Soda Pop = Soda = Coke. Depending on where you're at in the USA, each term may or may not be reconized (save "coke"). Just as the parent was mentioning with flip-flops.
Props for not AC'ing though! Least you can sack up!
[and now for the REAL translation... thongs = flip-flops, togs = swim suit, sunnies = sun glasses, and dacks = underwear ...from a Cali lad caught in the land of Oz.]
May I translate? Here in the great land down under, thongs are something you'd wear with your togs and sunnies, not with your dacks. Did that help?
Serves me right for using fucking Word to spell check the post (why does it insist on using funky characters for " and '?)
Oh, and "[A-Z]{2}AA" is slightly more correct! (Stupid growing up in DOS with its shitty wildcard characters)
There is a Central American country that also has made VoIP illegal because of their interest in the state run/owned TelCo. I'm not certain if they have implemented anything other then laws around its use in country, but China is not the first to do this.
I wanna say the country is Panama, but I'm really not sure. Based on http://www.google.com.au/search?q=panama+voip+ille gal&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls =org.mozilla:en-US:official">Google it seems it's Costa Rica, but my point is there are probably a handful of countries doing this already. This by no means makes it ok, of course!
Irony: 1a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit1. 2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain). b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic. 3. Dramatic irony. 4. Socratic irony.
Thats' one of the /. editors job's. Alongs with re-posting stories ad nausesm, there also their two ensure that grammer (and upon occasion speling) is held in compleat contempt.
More like grapes and tomatoes, but what do I know? I just proved you wrong and you choose to focus on nonsense. Win98 = Antiquated OS. NT4 = Antiquated OS. How bout you burn some karma AC and show your face.
We've got some Document Object Model stuff that runs only on an NT4 box because the newer Oracle drivers required on anything after NT4 simply will not play nice with the DOM shit. So there you go... not Win98 specific, but there's an example of a custom piece of (shitty) business software that won't run on anything but an even more antiquated OS then Win98.
When it gets down to it, couldn't vulnerabilities be analogous to dents and dings (or major engine trouble)? I know my Win2000 server keeps hanging on Microsoft's recent DirectX v9 patch, if that's not the same as a thrown rod, I donno what is (sure, she still runs, but you're only going to get more damage until it gets "repaired")!
Course, maybe that's why they "feel abused and frustrated"?!
Good thing SquirrelMail removes all inline images from my email!
Course this would be moot if there were linux drivers, right? But as you also mentioned, thus far many Linux drivers assume that "you are at least this smart" to install it (my Linux ATI drivers, for example... So my latest kernal didn't come with the source code... how do it get that...). I suppose more users like me (nerds who enjoy the odd hw/sw issue) asking for Linux support then it'll get better, but there are things WE can do as well I believe. Starting with nicer application names (what the hell does "NDIS" mean anyway!? And "abcde" is a what? Oh, a CD ripper, I guess I should just know that, huh?).
...oh, and don't even get me started on getting my touchpad to "work" (hand editing a config file per SuSE's support pages, then the bastard get overwritten [and loosing the hand-config] by YaST the next time I tinker with other settings - AAARRRGGG!)
After ranting for many years about never upgrading past Windows 2000 (mainly due to having to call MS should you need to reinstall, etc) I finally had to put my money where my mouth was when I purchased a new laptop a few months ago (eMachines m6805, AMD64). To make a long story short - I had a buddy help me install SuSE 9.3 on it and I've been on the penguin at home ever since.
What I have seen from a long time windows user perspective is this: functionality and abilities (and stability) is far greater on (SuSE 9.3) Linux then I ever experienced even under Windows 2000. The problem is the "Win95"-esque problems... such as getting my wireless networking card to work. Now fair enough... I had/have these issues with Windows upon an occasion as well, and I can work my way thru them faster then on Linux simply because I've got ump-teen years experience under Win. My gripes come when I have to follow quite esoteric HowTo's to get my gear to work (or to get this thingy to install, or, or, or).
Most times, I'll get whatever widget I need to working thanks to 2-3 of these HowTo's (mainly because 9.3 is a popular distro). But if I were unlucky enough to be one of the first people with problem 'X' I know I'd be screwed. Just the number of widgets and command line prompts and whatnot I had to tinker with to get my onboard WLAN card working was stunning. Then, after it was all said and done, I still couldn't get to websites 'cause the router didn't have valid DNS IP's configured (Linux seems to be a bit "bitchier" when it comes to certain things). Thankfully I picked up on this before blaming the card!
Now... I'm happy with SuSE/Linux and I cannot ever seeing myself turning back, but I'm a nerd that enjoys the occasional hw/sw challenge (something I've not had on a windows box in probably 3+ years). But for Joe Sixpack? We (as in the all of us, or the royal... take your pick) need to bring Linux's usability up past Win95, because in my opinion, that is exactly where (SuSE 9.3) Linux is currently at.
"It's an alternative fuel that is friendly for the environment. But it's complete nonsense to suggest dead cats. I've never used cats and would never think of that. At most the odd toad may have jumped in."
See Gattaca, The Island, and look at genetically engineered (and patented, and "self destructing") seeds, cows (not self destructing), etc. Monsanto won't give a shit about the hazard of a "mono-culture" until it hits their bottom line.
Best of all, I'm actually an optimist (no, really =)!
If WE choose to fuck with evolution by selecting for things that WE consider more perfect (smarter, stronger, less disease in our understanding) then WE start to walk through doors and close off areas that may be necessary someday.
Funny, in the end we are yelling the same point I think. I feel that WE are fucking with evolution by US deciding who can (or cannot) procreate. So I fully agree with you there. Yet I disagree that we should do all we can to forward every genetic line we can simply because we have the technology to do so. But if we start to impose an artificial "natural" environment to further progress toward a more perfect being then we are only setting ourselves down an artificial evolutionary path. I couldn't agree more, yet I believe that with the extensive use of our technology, we're simply imposing an artificial "artificial" environment on ourselves.
Really, thanks for the intelligent banter! I love a good clean debate with someone on the opposite side of the fence! You have logical reasons why you believe what you believe, just as I do. With discussions such as these we can each learn from one another and possibly in the end we are not as far apart as we once thought (or once were). The world needs more of these discussions, not less! Thanks again!
I defined "fitness" for the benefit of this discussion because my view of it was questioned. So with that I thought the discussion could benefit from me placing more of a firm view of what I intended the word "fitness" to mean in that context. This is in no way defining my own language, as you so claim. It is simply an effort to forward the debate. Think of how President Clinton "parsed" the English language during the Lewinsky trial. You expose your own intellectual deficiencies when you claim that I'm attempting to "make up my own language". (Ok, that was a bit low, but my own intellectual deficiencies made it so that I simply couldn't resist that cheap shot!)
That is emphatically and obviously false, unless you have some reason to believe that reproductive assistance technology will become less available in the future.
Yes, I do believe that in the future, given a large enough jolt such technologies will be out of reach for a generation or two (nuclear winter, a flu pandemic, or simply if you currently live in rural China) your current "enviroment" could very well be out of reach for a while. As I mentioned in another post, it seems that "you" (the collective you, not "you" you) have more faith in the system then I do. You have faith that Merck and Pfizer will always be there, I don't. And I guess in the end, that is the difference in our argument.
No, you are NOT supporting that idea. You are claiming that evolution is now moving in a direction (technology required for reproduction) which you don't like. You think that's a negative change? Fine- but it's still a CHANGE, which is all that "evolution" means.
(Agh shit, here I go again "making up my own language...") For me, for the purposes of this discussion, humans playing god is not equal to evolution. Are we "evolving"? Yes, but seemingly only in the directions that *we* deem. I cease to see it as "evolution" when the creature itself is manifesting its own destiny. But yes, I concede that we are still "changing", I just don't see our own artificial version of change to be equal to that of evolution. The results are the same, no doubt, but I see the means as more important then the ends.
Really, everyone... many thanks for all of the intelligent responses and counter-counter responses! They have all required me to rethink my original ephemeral ideas on the subject and forced me to justify my own point of view (or readjust it, as the case may be). What I have gotten it down to is this:
You have a genetic heart condition that is repairable by modern medical surgery. Bada bing, this is no longer a "liability" in your current "environment". You have the good fortune to breed with a significant other who themselves have an affliction that thanks to modern medicine is no longer a "liability". Fast forward a dozen generations or more. Your non-liability affliction as permeated your subsequent generations, just as your significant others has, not to mention the afflictions from all their mates and all their ancestors. Now, some dozen generations later, your offspring have the propensity to have congenital heart defects (no worries, Dr. will fix that), blood that won't clot (woops, that'll complicate the surgery) and any number of other afflictions that aren't bad enough to kill you in one's or two's, but when you have 15 or 16 of them you're kinda fucked.
Ok, so the ones that are "fucked" die off and everybody "wins" because nature has taken the "weak" and only the "strong" with the ability to "survive" in the current "environment" do. Thats all fine and good, but when the "environment" is a house of cards (see New Orleans, could you survive with less then 1 weeks interruption to your "environment"?) I call bullshit.
And here is where we begin to split hairs... "If you can't go a week without insulin (or whatever) and you die, I consider you genetically weak." is quickly countered with "Well, you can't got more then a few minutes without oxygen, so I likewise consider you genetically weak." Which is fair enough, what makes your lines any more or less valid then mine? In the end nothing, but I'd submit that Merck, Pfizer, etc aren't required to make "oxygen" for me, where as they are to make insulin.
Then we get into splitting environmental hairs. Is the US "environment" more valid then the rural Chinese "environment"? Americans* have easy and unabated access to insulin (or whatever) so it's not a liability (yet those in rural China may or may not). (* - by "Americans" I mean Americans with health cover, so those 20mil+ poor bastards without it in the states simply don't count - think of them as a "mulligan"!). So where do we end up? Maybe - "If you wouldn't have made it on 'Lost' then your not genetically strong enough in my book."
I suppose in the end, you (not "you", but those on the opposite side of the fence then I) have much more faith in our system then I do. You have faith that Merck and Pfizer will always be there, I don't. And I guess in the end, that is the difference in our argument.
Yet, my point is more focused on invitro fertilization, making those who physically can't procreate, can. But you do make a valid point, and I am slicing my view of "nature" and "natural" fairly thin I suppose. But I'll make a point I made in another post...
So say you have a genetic heart defect that is surgically repaired (no worries, we have the technology). You pass those traits onto your offspring just like you pass on your blue eyes or brown hair. Now, they simply get their heart defect patched up, but their mother passed blood that doesn't properly coagulate, complicating the surgery.
But I "...forgot that technology and civilization has all but removed natures influence on mankind. The original "intent" or reason for selection was to select for DNA that deals with nature efficiently. Alas, nowadays, no one needs..." a heart that pumps blood! Oh, wait...
At some point I believe you'll end up with more holes then cheese.