Honestly, I don't know. Unfortunately, some of it is probably necessary to keep ecosystems that we've already screwed up from spiraling further out of balance. It would be best to take measures to avoid the problem (i.e., stop destroying animal habitats to extend suburbia, stop killing off natural predators like wolves, bears, and mountain lions).
Hubris, my ass- I'm a vegan and I respect your right to eat meat, but I have to call you out when you say stupid shit like your post.
I'm a vegan because I believe society has advanced to a point where we are capable of survival without intentionally causing suffering to animals. Sure, we evolved to be omnivores, but the majority of our evolution occured before the advent of agriculture and civilization, and thus killing was a necessary part of survival. We also evolved to be greedy and lustful. Does that make stealing and rape ok?
Your stupid hypothetical situation puts one back into a scenario where they would have to kill for survival. This is not what we are presented with in everyday reality. Yes, if it's kill or die, I'll kill. I don't value an animal's life more than my own, but that doesn't mean that an animal's life is without value, or that they do not suffer. Everyday reality is not kill or die, so I do my best not to. That doesn't make me hypocritical.
VHS winning out over BetaMax proving that the free market doesn't always result in the most efficient solution is the usual example of the economic theory that these guys don't believe in
but VHS beating Beta WAS the free market choosing the most efficient solution, when all factors were considered. IIRC, it was Sony's licensing that was ultimately the cause of Beta's downfall. Sure, Beta may have been technologically better, but technological superiority isn't the only factor guiding the market.
Likewise, any superiority the Dvorak may have is apparently minor enough to be trumped by the difficulty of having to learn another keyboard layout and the trouble of having to either carry your own keyboard wherever you go or else switch back whenever you use someone else's computer.
I knew this was going to happen, because governments always want some technological solution that they can just buy, but why the hell not just put a bomb sniffing dog at each station? That has to be cheaper than the backscatter X-ray machines. They could be like mascots. Even better, you could just give every police officer a dog, only some of which were bomb-sniffers. Only the police would know which were which...
no, i mean an interpreter or compiler or whatever so that you can run Xcode mac apps that are supposed to run on either x86 or PPC under Linux. Sorta like a Mac version of Wine, or something...
Here is some money that NASA could "invest" in another x-prize like compitition. Get some innovation back into the space game. Maybe once China starts blasting some people towards Mars the US will get off its ass again.
Why, when the best scientists on the issue are in academia, and they could easily just make... oh, wait, they already did
If people use this, it will likely remove much redundancy from google's indexing processes, possibly freeing up bandwidth and processing power in their datacenters for other projects like more web-based applications...
Re:If memory serves me correctly...
on
Trust in a Bottle
·
· Score: 1
it sounds like it could be useful for couples therapy when they need to restore trust in eachother to get along again. spend some time talking and cuddling, and if they still are having problems spend some time talking and cuddling while under the influence of Oxytocin...
no, i mean having electromagnets on both the rotor and the stator, with the ability to electronically switch the polarity of each electromagnet in various configurations
This sounds a lot like an idea I once had-
basically you do away with the permanent magnets and have electromagnets on both the rotor and the stator. Say you have 16 individual electromagnets around each- You can then choose to orient them in a variety of ways depending on how much torque you need:
First Gear: SNSNSNSNSNSNSNSN NNSSNNSSNNSSNNSS
Secon d Gear: NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS NSSNNSSNNSSNNSSN
Third Gear: NNNNSSSSNNNNSSSS NSSSSNNNNSSSSNNN
Fourt h Gear: NSSSSSSSSNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNSSSSSSSS
And there are 2^16 - 4 more configurations, so you can basically have that many gears and make the transition across the torque curve imperceptibly smooth, like here would be your last gear (...or would it be the first? I never tried it to see how it would work):
i can buy that- consequently, since a 3-month-old fetus does not appear to have reached a point in its neural development to even have experiences, much less process them or remember them, there is little harm done and little lost when it is terminated.
If you noticed, I started the thread. I have a daughter due in 4 weeks, who may have Downs, and the doctors have repeadetly urged us to terminate.
indeed you did- my bad:)
When a doctor tells you how you are "8 weeks pregnant", he means that the fetal age is 6 weeks. This does have an affect on stats, as you can imagine.
so if you were to say most terminations usually occur at 10 weeks into germination, be counting it as a fetal age of 8 weeks? Maybe I need some more clarification on this.
re: 1)- is there any reason it should make you sad? Is there reason to believe that a first trimester fetus suffers pain during an abortion? I don't see any reason why it should, and certainly don't see any reason why one should be prevented from terminating their pregnancy at such an early point in the fetus' development without evidence to indicate that it is a thinking human being that suffers, or something similar to that.
Re: 2)- To me, it depends on the imperfection. Aborting a fetus because of cosmetic imperfections does seem sad to me as well. And while it is always sad when we don't get what we would most desire, aborting a fetus that will clearly never be an independent and reproductively viable candidate does seem perfectly logical to me.
Re: 3- the line is certainly fuzzy, although I believe there are periods like the whole first trimester which it can be logically concluded safely fall on one side of the line, and if we can reliably detect significant developmental flaws in that time frame, there is little reason not to terminate.
I agree that there is no certain date where we can draw the line and be sure. Perhaps there can go by a certain vital sign like brain activity or something like that.
In any case, most people terminate long before getting close to that line, and to deny those people that ability for the sake of stopping those few that wait until very late to do anything seems inappropriate.
Why does the question, "Is there a line to be drawn in regards to an acceptable time for fetal termination?" need any sort of evidence? It's a question. I state that there is no line to be drawn because there are no acceptable factors for termination (unless you can bring me a reasonable one).
You said, and I am not manipulating this quote in any way:
Because I can accept the fact that there is no line to draw on when a human being becomes "fully developed".
it can be factually disproven that "there is no line to draw on when a human being becomes 'fully developed'", because clearly many people do draw a line, and good science indicates that that line is somewhere in the middle of the second trimester.
Call it sentience, call it a soul, call it capacity to suffer, there is a pretty significant distinction between a first trimester fetus and a third trimester fetus. The observed evidence leads many of us conclude that a first trimester fetus lacks pretty much any trait that would make it a being deserving of compassion or protected status, and I see no logical ethical reason to stop people from terminating a pregnancy at that point if they choose to do so, and no logical benefit to forcing people to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, whether to give it up for adoption or raise it themselves the best they can.
Maybe I'm apathetic, but I find no real answer in the whole entire "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" debate... just like any other of the left vs. right hot topics out there. I could bitch for hours at the idiots involved in the creationism vs. evolution war. Hell, let's all believe in symbiogenesis... it's the cuddliest theory!
Yeah, I doubt the world will ever agree on a conclusion to this debate, or that anyone will change anyone's mind, but many of us find it entertaining to banter with the logical ends of the conundrum.
I've had my share of pregnancy scares, going to the store to buy my girlfriend a test, etc. Does it frighten me into thinking about abortion? No. Why? Because I can accept the fact that there is no line to draw on when a human being becomes "fully developed".
Is that a fact? Prove it. Is it not clear that at 3 months a fetus is not nearly as complex of a lifeform that it is at 6 months, and somewhere in that timeframe is where the fetus develops some capacity to suffer?
A baby hardly understands the concept of "itself". Does this make it "non-sentient"? Hell, most people don't even regard themselves as "sentient" beings.
But there can be no doubt that babies and even older fetuses are capable of much suffering, while younger ones have not yet developed such a capacity.
You also changed your defintions of human existence. In a previous post you refer to humans as nothing more than a ball of tissue. Now you refer to a fetus as a ball of tissue and humans as "fully-developed".
That is not a change at all. All humans are merely balls of tissue, it's true. I challenge you to demonstrate that it is not, if you believe otherwise. However, the capacity for these balls of tissue to suffer develops sometime toward the middle of gestation, and clearly after the first third of the pregnancy, so there is a big moral difference between ending a pregnancy in the first trimester (as most abortions are), and ending it in the third or killing someone after birth.
You're the one who's calling the baby "unwanted". You're the one who's suggesting abortion out of the fear of a pregnancy scare.
Yes, and if I'm the one who would have to deal with the responsibilty of raising a child which I do not have the resources or desire to adequately support, I have every right to do so.
You're the one stating that "some" research "may very well" point towards your point of view. You're externalizing your argument to outside sources
Yes, we call this presenting facts, using logic, etc. Where are your outside sources?
while calling the person you're arguing with names,
Who's calling anyone names?
creating arguments for things they didn't say (you're the one who brought up God in the prior threads, not them),
I referred to God not because the OP referred to God, but to preempt what is the usual argument for the contrary
and re-editing his quotations.
Where?
You've degenerated this argument into a highschool-level cliche of a debate and you're confusing compassion with selfishness and fear.
Whatever- I'm being as logical as possible about this, it is you who continues to argue without presenting any real evidence to support your points.
Actually, the point of having a child is to selfishly try to propagate one's own genetic line as far as possible. It's only because most everyone else is just as determined to do the same thing that as a whole it maximizes the long-term survivability of the species. Think how the invisible hand of capitalism works.
It's a lot like capitalism- in a truly free market, businesses that are clearly doomed to failure from the start are not given capital to work with in the first place. It is in the best interest and in the society's best intrest to not expend significant resources on non-viable candidates.
Oh, so as long we can build some justification to end define level of development, it's okay to then try to weed out some for the benefit of the society? How is this not like killing a 10 year old that's got a negative genetic defect? Or do they have to not be talking yet for you to think it's okay?
that dividing line will always be fuzzy, and what constitutes sufficent development to be concerned about the being's suffering will always be a matter of debate, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the line falls somewhere after the first trimester, when the fetus is more aptly described as a clump of cells and when the majority of abortions occur.
Distinguishing between a human and a wolf does not give justification for having some innate right to kill one over the other. Instead, one only has to consider the waste of creating life just to destroy it. Being a vegan I'd be killing life as well (plants). It's only through something like being a fruitarian that I'd pose any chance of not killing life to eat. I'm an omnivore. And I have issue with the needless suffering of the animals I eat. At least those animals that are raised for food fill some useful purpose to other life.
But there is plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that plant suffering and animal suffering are not the same, and every reason to believe that animals, particularly vertebrates, and especially
mammals are capable of emotion and great suffering which we would not want inflicted upon ourselves. It always disturbs me that so many pro-lifers are so inconsistent that they claim to support a "culture of life" while ignoring the suffering of fellow animals, supporting the dealth penalty when it has been shown to have little deterring effect, and ignoring the suffering of their fellow man. It's "we care about your rights as an individual if you haven't yet been born, or if you're a persistent vegetative state, but everything in between, you're on your own!
It startles me that people should suffer for having to raise and care for another living being or the mere prospect of having to do so. If such people are really that fearful of the consequences of their actions, perhaps they should remove the 99.9% chance of it occuring (ie, a vasectomy). Yes, that still leaves risk, but perhaps then there'd be more compassion for them not wanting to have the child and there'd be more room for others who can't have children to adopt such a child.
This is a matter which you can disagree with me on, but I don't consider it reasonable to expect all sexually mature adults to abstain from sex unless they're willing to have a child should the wheel of chance happen to not fall in their favor.
And there's plenty of evidence that thievery in the long term is disadvantageous to society. We tend to arrest thieves. We also give warnings if you make a small mistake like shop lift.
That analogy is not comparable or analogous in any way. Thievery is clearly detrimental to society and our ideas of property, and one who is guilty of theivery is still one capable of much suffering, and still may have other traits that would be advantageous to society. a 3-month old fetus is not capable of suffering, and if undesired presents a significant risk to society
So it's not a sentient being? Does that mean going about terminating all life that's not yet sentient is
We were fully qualified for the majority of agricultural and industrial jobs, and plenty of service jobs, too. So we went into high school with the basic knowledge we need in modern society. That's not what we were there for.
I don't think having the average child only be qualified for agricultural, industrial, and service jobs is something that would be beneficial for our national economy. While there is demand for these workers now, it is clear that there are significant trends which indicate that as technology increases and better industrial farming, mass production, and automation methods are developed, demand will decline.
Meanwhile, sectors like engineering, design, and the creative industries continue to grow. If we wish to fill future demand and remain a big player in the world economy, we will need a large supply of workers with higher education than what is developed by the time one enters high school. High school primes (or at least should prime) workers for jobs which require much more critical, creative, and analytical thinking than what an 8th grade education provides. Widespread availabilty of employees with skills honed in high school, such as research, analytical writing and trigonometry are imperative for the long-term viability of our economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, I don't know. Unfortunately, some of it is probably necessary to keep ecosystems that we've already screwed up from spiraling further out of balance. It would be best to take measures to avoid the problem (i.e., stop destroying animal habitats to extend suburbia, stop killing off natural predators like wolves, bears, and mountain lions).
Hubris, my ass- I'm a vegan and I respect your right to eat meat, but I have to call you out when you say stupid shit like your post.
I'm a vegan because I believe society has advanced to a point where we are capable of survival without intentionally causing suffering to animals. Sure, we evolved to be omnivores, but the majority of our evolution occured before the advent of agriculture and civilization, and thus killing was a necessary part of survival. We also evolved to be greedy and lustful. Does that make stealing and rape ok?
Your stupid hypothetical situation puts one back into a scenario where they would have to kill for survival. This is not what we are presented with in everyday reality. Yes, if it's kill or die, I'll kill. I don't value an animal's life more than my own, but that doesn't mean that an animal's life is without value, or that they do not suffer. Everyday reality is not kill or die, so I do my best not to. That doesn't make me hypocritical.
VHS winning out over BetaMax proving that the free market doesn't always result in the most efficient solution is the usual example of the economic theory that these guys don't believe in
but VHS beating Beta WAS the free market choosing the most efficient solution, when all factors were considered. IIRC, it was Sony's licensing that was ultimately the cause of Beta's downfall. Sure, Beta may have been technologically better, but technological superiority isn't the only factor guiding the market.
Likewise, any superiority the Dvorak may have is apparently minor enough to be trumped by the difficulty of having to learn another keyboard layout and the trouble of having to either carry your own keyboard wherever you go or else switch back whenever you use someone else's computer.
I knew this was going to happen, because governments always want some technological solution that they can just buy, but why the hell not just put a bomb sniffing dog at each station? That has to be cheaper than the backscatter X-ray machines. They could be like mascots. Even better, you could just give every police officer a dog, only some of which were bomb-sniffers. Only the police would know which were which...
oh, there's usually plenty of editorializing. it's the lack of editing that seems to be the problem.
Intel is winning the war but it is sad to see some of the's CPU's go the way of the dodo.
Yeah, the had quite a few good CPUs...
no, i mean an interpreter or compiler or whatever so that you can run Xcode mac apps that are supposed to run on either x86 or PPC under Linux. Sorta like a Mac version of Wine, or something...
Why not make an XCode interpreter, or compiler, or whatever it is you would need, for Linux?
Here is some money that NASA could "invest" in another x-prize like compitition. Get some innovation back into the space game. Maybe once China starts blasting some people towards Mars the US will get off its ass again.
Why, when the best scientists on the issue are in academia, and they could easily just make... oh, wait, they already did
Perhaps they created this with the hope that it would become an open de-facto standard before microsoft made a proprietary one.
If people use this, it will likely remove much redundancy from google's indexing processes, possibly freeing up bandwidth and processing power in their datacenters for other projects like more web-based applications...
it sounds like it could be useful for couples therapy when they need to restore trust in eachother to get along again. spend some time talking and cuddling, and if they still are having problems spend some time talking and cuddling while under the influence of Oxytocin...
you mean there are naive people on the internet?
no, i mean having electromagnets on both the rotor and the stator, with the ability to electronically switch the polarity of each electromagnet in various configurations
hm- actually, once you get to the top gear, you could probably just pulse that on and off to maintain speed and conserve battery life
indeed, i suppose i should have clarified by putting quotes around soul.
i can buy that- consequently, since a 3-month-old fetus does not appear to have reached a point in its neural development to even have experiences, much less process them or remember them, there is little harm done and little lost when it is terminated.
once everyone and their dog P0wnz your computer, very little of it can be considered "yours" anymore anyway :)
If you noticed, I started the thread. I have a daughter due in 4 weeks, who may have Downs, and the doctors have repeadetly urged us to terminate.
:)
indeed you did- my bad
When a doctor tells you how you are "8 weeks pregnant", he means that the fetal age is 6 weeks. This does have an affect on stats, as you can imagine.
so if you were to say most terminations usually occur at 10 weeks into germination, be counting it as a fetal age of 8 weeks? Maybe I need some more clarification on this.
re: 1)- is there any reason it should make you sad? Is there reason to believe that a first trimester fetus suffers pain during an abortion? I don't see any reason why it should, and certainly don't see any reason why one should be prevented from terminating their pregnancy at such an early point in the fetus' development without evidence to indicate that it is a thinking human being that suffers, or something similar to that.
Re: 2)- To me, it depends on the imperfection. Aborting a fetus because of cosmetic imperfections does seem sad to me as well. And while it is always sad when we don't get what we would most desire, aborting a fetus that will clearly never be an independent and reproductively viable candidate does seem perfectly logical to me.
Re: 3- the line is certainly fuzzy, although I believe there are periods like the whole first trimester which it can be logically concluded safely fall on one side of the line, and if we can reliably detect significant developmental flaws in that time frame, there is little reason not to terminate.
I agree that there is no certain date where we can draw the line and be sure. Perhaps there can go by a certain vital sign like brain activity or something like that.
In any case, most people terminate long before getting close to that line, and to deny those people that ability for the sake of stopping those few that wait until very late to do anything seems inappropriate.
You said, and I am not manipulating this quote in any way:
it can be factually disproven that "there is no line to draw on when a human being becomes 'fully developed'", because clearly many people do draw a line, and good science indicates that that line is somewhere in the middle of the second trimester.
Call it sentience, call it a soul, call it capacity to suffer, there is a pretty significant distinction between a first trimester fetus and a third trimester fetus. The observed evidence leads many of us conclude that a first trimester fetus lacks pretty much any trait that would make it a being deserving of compassion or protected status, and I see no logical ethical reason to stop people from terminating a pregnancy at that point if they choose to do so, and no logical benefit to forcing people to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, whether to give it up for adoption or raise it themselves the best they can.
Maybe I'm apathetic, but I find no real answer in the whole entire "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" debate... just like any other of the left vs. right hot topics out there. I could bitch for hours at the idiots involved in the creationism vs. evolution war. Hell, let's all believe in symbiogenesis... it's the cuddliest theory!
Yeah, I doubt the world will ever agree on a conclusion to this debate, or that anyone will change anyone's mind, but many of us find it entertaining to banter with the logical ends of the conundrum.
I've had my share of pregnancy scares, going to the store to buy my girlfriend a test, etc. Does it frighten me into thinking about abortion? No. Why? Because I can accept the fact that there is no line to draw on when a human being becomes "fully developed".
Is that a fact? Prove it. Is it not clear that at 3 months a fetus is not nearly as complex of a lifeform that it is at 6 months, and somewhere in that timeframe is where the fetus develops some capacity to suffer?
A baby hardly understands the concept of "itself". Does this make it "non-sentient"? Hell, most people don't even regard themselves as "sentient" beings.
But there can be no doubt that babies and even older fetuses are capable of much suffering, while younger ones have not yet developed such a capacity.
You also changed your defintions of human existence. In a previous post you refer to humans as nothing more than a ball of tissue. Now you refer to a fetus as a ball of tissue and humans as "fully-developed".
That is not a change at all. All humans are merely balls of tissue, it's true. I challenge you to demonstrate that it is not, if you believe otherwise. However, the capacity for these balls of tissue to suffer develops sometime toward the middle of gestation, and clearly after the first third of the pregnancy, so there is a big moral difference between ending a pregnancy in the first trimester (as most abortions are), and ending it in the third or killing someone after birth.
You're the one who's calling the baby "unwanted". You're the one who's suggesting abortion out of the fear of a pregnancy scare.
Yes, and if I'm the one who would have to deal with the responsibilty of raising a child which I do not have the resources or desire to adequately support, I have every right to do so.
You're the one stating that "some" research "may very well" point towards your point of view. You're externalizing your argument to outside sources
Yes, we call this presenting facts, using logic, etc. Where are your outside sources?
while calling the person you're arguing with names,
Who's calling anyone names?
creating arguments for things they didn't say (you're the one who brought up God in the prior threads, not them),
I referred to God not because the OP referred to God, but to preempt what is the usual argument for the contrary
and re-editing his quotations.
Where?
You've degenerated this argument into a highschool-level cliche of a debate and you're confusing compassion with selfishness and fear.
Whatever- I'm being as logical as possible about this, it is you who continues to argue without presenting any real evidence to support your points.
Actually, the point of having a child is to selfishly try to propagate one's own genetic line as far as possible. It's only because most everyone else is just as determined to do the same thing that as a whole it maximizes the long-term survivability of the species. Think how the invisible hand of capitalism works.
It's a lot like capitalism- in a truly free market, businesses that are clearly doomed to failure from the start are not given capital to work with in the first place. It is in the best interest and in the society's best intrest to not expend significant resources on non-viable candidates.
Oh, so as long we can build some justification to end define level of development, it's okay to then try to weed out some for the benefit of the society? How is this not like killing a 10 year old that's got a negative genetic defect? Or do they have to not be talking yet for you to think it's okay?
that dividing line will always be fuzzy, and what constitutes sufficent development to be concerned about the being's suffering will always be a matter of debate, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the line falls somewhere after the first trimester, when the fetus is more aptly described as a clump of cells and when the majority of abortions occur.
Distinguishing between a human and a wolf does not give justification for having some innate right to kill one over the other. Instead, one only has to consider the waste of creating life just to destroy it. Being a vegan I'd be killing life as well (plants). It's only through something like being a fruitarian that I'd pose any chance of not killing life to eat. I'm an omnivore. And I have issue with the needless suffering of the animals I eat. At least those animals that are raised for food fill some useful purpose to other life.
But there is plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that plant suffering and animal suffering are not the same, and every reason to believe that animals, particularly vertebrates, and especially mammals are capable of emotion and great suffering which we would not want inflicted upon ourselves. It always disturbs me that so many pro-lifers are so inconsistent that they claim to support a "culture of life" while ignoring the suffering of fellow animals, supporting the dealth penalty when it has been shown to have little deterring effect, and ignoring the suffering of their fellow man. It's "we care about your rights as an individual if you haven't yet been born, or if you're a persistent vegetative state, but everything in between, you're on your own!
It startles me that people should suffer for having to raise and care for another living being or the mere prospect of having to do so. If such people are really that fearful of the consequences of their actions, perhaps they should remove the 99.9% chance of it occuring (ie, a vasectomy). Yes, that still leaves risk, but perhaps then there'd be more compassion for them not wanting to have the child and there'd be more room for others who can't have children to adopt such a child.
This is a matter which you can disagree with me on, but I don't consider it reasonable to expect all sexually mature adults to abstain from sex unless they're willing to have a child should the wheel of chance happen to not fall in their favor.
And there's plenty of evidence that thievery in the long term is disadvantageous to society. We tend to arrest thieves. We also give warnings if you make a small mistake like shop lift.
That analogy is not comparable or analogous in any way. Thievery is clearly detrimental to society and our ideas of property, and one who is guilty of theivery is still one capable of much suffering, and still may have other traits that would be advantageous to society. a 3-month old fetus is not capable of suffering, and if undesired presents a significant risk to society
So it's not a sentient being? Does that mean going about terminating all life that's not yet sentient is
We were fully qualified for the majority of agricultural and industrial jobs, and plenty of service jobs, too. So we went into high school with the basic knowledge we need in modern society. That's not what we were there for.
I don't think having the average child only be qualified for agricultural, industrial, and service jobs is something that would be beneficial for our national economy. While there is demand for these workers now, it is clear that there are significant trends which indicate that as technology increases and better industrial farming, mass production, and automation methods are developed, demand will decline.
Meanwhile, sectors like engineering, design, and the creative industries continue to grow. If we wish to fill future demand and remain a big player in the world economy, we will need a large supply of workers with higher education than what is developed by the time one enters high school. High school primes (or at least should prime) workers for jobs which require much more critical, creative, and analytical thinking than what an 8th grade education provides. Widespread availabilty of employees with skills honed in high school, such as research, analytical writing and trigonometry are imperative for the long-term viability of our economy.