You are claiming that the extreme sun sensitivity to which many redheads are prone is not a serious problem.
You are also claiming a person whose huge contributions to humanity have made him rich does not deserve special consideration, even if he is the individual who invented the correction from which he would benefit. Your motive here is nothing but jealousy of those better than yourself.
I'd think that it shouldn't be long before biocompatible limbs can be grown from a small tissue sample; there have already been significant steps in that direction. Not all problems are looking for a GMO solution.
You are attempting to conflate science with scientists, and you're not going to get away with it. Once people, a body of knowledge, and the scientific method, are all properly identified, your post becomes gibberish.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? No amount of genetic manipulation will eliminate laziness. The lazy person earns less, and from among the lazy who earn less some will be jealous of and pissed off at those who earn more. Some will turn to violence or crime.
People don't even need real differences to cause malicious harm. Just look at riots after soccer games.
In all likelihood, people will be better. Just don't think that everything will be fixed.
To some extent, beauty is an absolute, not relative. Beauty is indicative of health, and health is always pleasing to the eye. Considering the opposite, if everybody were scarred and oozing pus, nobody would be beautiful.
13 years ago, I moved from Los Angeles to New Hampshire. Middle aged LA women are more attractive than NH by a small margin, but NH girls are much prettier than LA girls, on average. This distinction remains after 13 years, so it's not just what I've gotten used to, it's an absolute based on such considerations as proportion and symmetry.
Eye sensitivity can be boosted by about 10x - reflective layer and wider pupil - at the cost of acuity. Cyborg eyes will someday allow the replacement of rods & cones with silicon, good for maybe a 6x improvement. Neither sounds like a particularly good choice, although a silicon replacement for a blind eye could be very good.
It's possible that a modification will result in some horrific disease.
Yep, it's possible, but only in those who were undergoing a repair attempt in the first place. That's going to be a very small number of people, everyone else on earth is unaffected.
Once drugs come off patent competition usually drives the price down. Also, FWIW, there are many countries that extort drug companies into much lower prices in those countries, refusing to recognize the patent.
Accidents, properly defined, fall outside the realm of ethics.
At best, risk levels can be defined, and a cost-benefit analysis performed. Generally speaking, we're talking about serious people consciously and conscientiously evaluating an important decision, not some fool deciding the daughter must have yellow feathers even if it means a bird-brain.
In principle, the decision to take a risk with genetic engineering does not differ from deciding to drive a car.
Science can inform ethics in practice. The scientific information that arsenic is poisonous is relevant to deciding if it's ethical to feed your husband arsenic.
Ethics falls under the purview of philosophy. It is the rational study of subjectivity.
"The rational study of subjectivity" is what psychology pretends to be.
[Ethics] is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions---the choices and actions that determine the purpose and course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code. (from The Objectivist Ethics by Ayn Rand.)
Whether or not you like Ayn Rand, that's a good working definition
Show me in nature a thing that which can be measured whose number tells us that murder is wrong.
OK, I'll do that. Recognize that not all ethical systems are equivalent; some of them are self-contradictory or absurd, and I'm avoiding that. I'll start by observing that ethical systems are used by animals that think and act, to guide their thinking and action. In the ethical system I'm proposing here, the purpose of the system is to support and advance the wellbeing of its user. (There's some contradiction involved in a system that does not have such a purpose, a creature that acts against its wellbeing tends to destroy itself, ending any need for an ethical system.) Another observation is that thinking and acting animals, through the mechanism of cooperation, can support and advance their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others. Just to make things obvious, I'll state that this is the right condition. Failing to use cooperation when it can be advantageous to one's wellbeing is by comparison self-damaging, and wrong in this ethical system. For my hypothetical example I choose the situation where I measure in nature the count of other thinking and acting animals in my vicinity available for cooperation to support and advance my wellbeing, and the count of that number is one. Murdering that thinking and acting animal eliminates any possibility that it will support and advance my wellbeing, and is therefor wrong. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Show me a study that can be done to show what is the best favorite color.
If that is even possible, it falls into the domain of esthetics, not ethics.
Scientist's views on ethics are just as valid as the pope's views on what makes a good strip club.
I suspect you are trying to say that a scientist's views on ethics are of poor quality. Scientists think for a living, and this gives them at least a better chance to have a good ethical system than the average person's (Yes, I'm equating valid with good). Whether bad schooling or a tendency not to be religious results in bad ethical views in practice I do not have enough data to evaluate.
1 meter away, actually. +1D is 1 diopter; a diopter is an inverse meter.
There are those who state that muscles are used only to close-focus, changing the shape of the lens and the whole eyeball, and that distance focusing is a state of relaxation. Others claim that muscles are also used for far-focus. If the first group is correct, no amount of eye-exercise will help the myopic.
There are multiple factors here, including genetic predisposition. When I was 10-11, my eyes got noticeably worse in the winter but recovered almost completely in the sunny summer. In the age 11-12 school year they got much worse in the winter and I had to get glasses in April. A reasonable explanation is that a genetic predisposition or some other flaw was fighting against the beneficial effects of sunlight, and sunlight lost.
There are a lot of subtle things going on here and interacting. Neither your case nor mine constitutes proof of any particular general hypothesis on myopia, we're merely data points. The researchers have made valuable observations on (I presume) a reasonable number of samples, and tied their numbers to a plausible but not thoroughly worked out mechanism. They've done something good and very important.
The problem is not being too close to the TV, although that doesn't make things better. It's the INTENSITY of the light, acting through the intermediary of photo-activated hormones. There is also some information indicating that the spectrum has an effect, although this needs to be quantified with further studies. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that UV / IR plays some role.
Even though a tiny iris opening means not having to do as much work to achieve acceptable focus, that's not how the body works. Regardless of light level, eyes try to reach perfect focus, which does not change with different light levels.
It could easily be argued that overworking the eyes' muscles by trying to focus in dim light would lead to exhaustion or even spasm - see the hypothesis of William Bates. I don't accept that argument, but it has been seriously proposed.
Strange, isn't it? I thought it was new-age BS when I read that blue light tends to cure myopia in Linda Clark's The Ancient Art of Color Therapy (1981). 20 months ago I painted my house deep sky blue, and noticed after that staring at a blue wall for several hours, my vision was noticeably better. I'm over 60; this was a surprising result. I wonder what part of the eye is changing.
Considering only the myopia-hyperopia scale, myopia means only being able to focus at points closer than infinity. One weakness in the article is failing to give a number for the borderline of severe myopia, e.g. 10 diopters or whatever.
The widely-understood meaning of agoraphobia is fear of open spaces, and wikipedia says it's mostly that plus fear of crowds. I think you've cast your net a little too widely, as your definition seems to include claustrophobia.
If you are traveling at 0.9c relative to Earth, the speed of light is still 1.0c away from you in your frame of reference. No matter How fast you go relative to something else, the speed of light is always 1.0c away from you. That's just how the equations work out, speeds don't add arithmetically. That's why it's called relativity, speeds are relative to your frame of reference.
Slashdot Mirror
It is only pervs who consider images of unclothed women degrading.
You are claiming that the extreme sun sensitivity to which many redheads are prone is not a serious problem.
You are also claiming a person whose huge contributions to humanity have made him rich does not deserve special consideration, even if he is the individual who invented the correction from which he would benefit. Your motive here is nothing but jealousy of those better than yourself.
I'd think that it shouldn't be long before biocompatible limbs can be grown from a small tissue sample; there have already been significant steps in that direction. Not all problems are looking for a GMO solution.
You going to do that at gunpoint?
You are attempting to conflate science with scientists, and you're not going to get away with it. Once people, a body of knowledge, and the scientific method, are all properly identified, your post becomes gibberish.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? No amount of genetic manipulation will eliminate laziness. The lazy person earns less, and from among the lazy who earn less some will be jealous of and pissed off at those who earn more. Some will turn to violence or crime.
People don't even need real differences to cause malicious harm. Just look at riots after soccer games.
In all likelihood, people will be better. Just don't think that everything will be fixed.
To some extent, beauty is an absolute, not relative. Beauty is indicative of health, and health is always pleasing to the eye. Considering the opposite, if everybody were scarred and oozing pus, nobody would be beautiful.
13 years ago, I moved from Los Angeles to New Hampshire. Middle aged LA women are more attractive than NH by a small margin, but NH girls are much prettier than LA girls, on average. This distinction remains after 13 years, so it's not just what I've gotten used to, it's an absolute based on such considerations as proportion and symmetry.
Commercial sex is bad from a public health standpoint, and the more widespread it is, the greater a problem it is.
There's a reason beyond religion that it's an insult to call a person a whore.
There's a reason beyond religion that it's an insult to say "Johnny has to pay for it."
High selectivity is a mark of a person worthy of respect, and a prostitute accepts all comers. It's not indicative of a healthy mind.
We can't design wings that work - on Earth. In a closed dome on the moon at 1 atm, why not?
Eye sensitivity can be boosted by about 10x - reflective layer and wider pupil - at the cost of acuity. Cyborg eyes will someday allow the replacement of rods & cones with silicon, good for maybe a 6x improvement. Neither sounds like a particularly good choice, although a silicon replacement for a blind eye could be very good.
Yep, it's possible, but only in those who were undergoing a repair attempt in the first place. That's going to be a very small number of people, everyone else on earth is unaffected.
Can't we practice on the undead instead?
Are you aware that the Amish are growing in number far more rapidly than the general population?
Once drugs come off patent competition usually drives the price down. Also, FWIW, there are many countries that extort drug companies into much lower prices in those countries, refusing to recognize the patent.
Accidents, properly defined, fall outside the realm of ethics.
At best, risk levels can be defined, and a cost-benefit analysis performed. Generally speaking, we're talking about serious people consciously and conscientiously evaluating an important decision, not some fool deciding the daughter must have yellow feathers even if it means a bird-brain.
In principle, the decision to take a risk with genetic engineering does not differ from deciding to drive a car.
Science can inform ethics in practice. The scientific information that arsenic is poisonous is relevant to deciding if it's ethical to feed your husband arsenic.
"The rational study of subjectivity" is what psychology pretends to be.
[Ethics] is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions---the choices and actions that determine the purpose and course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code. (from The Objectivist Ethics by Ayn Rand.)
Whether or not you like Ayn Rand, that's a good working definition
OK, I'll do that. Recognize that not all ethical systems are equivalent; some of them are self-contradictory or absurd, and I'm avoiding that. I'll start by observing that ethical systems are used by animals that think and act, to guide their thinking and action. In the ethical system I'm proposing here, the purpose of the system is to support and advance the wellbeing of its user. (There's some contradiction involved in a system that does not have such a purpose, a creature that acts against its wellbeing tends to destroy itself, ending any need for an ethical system.) Another observation is that thinking and acting animals, through the mechanism of cooperation, can support and advance their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others. Just to make things obvious, I'll state that this is the right condition. Failing to use cooperation when it can be advantageous to one's wellbeing is by comparison self-damaging, and wrong in this ethical system. For my hypothetical example I choose the situation where I measure in nature the count of other thinking and acting animals in my vicinity available for cooperation to support and advance my wellbeing, and the count of that number is one. Murdering that thinking and acting animal eliminates any possibility that it will support and advance my wellbeing, and is therefor wrong. Quod erat demonstrandum.
If that is even possible, it falls into the domain of esthetics, not ethics.
I suspect you are trying to say that a scientist's views on ethics are of poor quality. Scientists think for a living, and this gives them at least a better chance to have a good ethical system than the average person's (Yes, I'm equating valid with good). Whether bad schooling or a tendency not to be religious results in bad ethical views in practice I do not have enough data to evaluate.
See what happens when you don't read TFA? You make a fool of yourself.
1 meter away, actually. +1D is 1 diopter; a diopter is an inverse meter.
There are those who state that muscles are used only to close-focus, changing the shape of the lens and the whole eyeball, and that distance focusing is a state of relaxation. Others claim that muscles are also used for far-focus. If the first group is correct, no amount of eye-exercise will help the myopic.
There are multiple factors here, including genetic predisposition. When I was 10-11, my eyes got noticeably worse in the winter but recovered almost completely in the sunny summer. In the age 11-12 school year they got much worse in the winter and I had to get glasses in April. A reasonable explanation is that a genetic predisposition or some other flaw was fighting against the beneficial effects of sunlight, and sunlight lost.
There are a lot of subtle things going on here and interacting. Neither your case nor mine constitutes proof of any particular general hypothesis on myopia, we're merely data points. The researchers have made valuable observations on (I presume) a reasonable number of samples, and tied their numbers to a plausible but not thoroughly worked out mechanism. They've done something good and very important.
The problem is not being too close to the TV, although that doesn't make things better. It's the INTENSITY of the light, acting through the intermediary of photo-activated hormones. There is also some information indicating that the spectrum has an effect, although this needs to be quantified with further studies. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that UV / IR plays some role.
Even though a tiny iris opening means not having to do as much work to achieve acceptable focus, that's not how the body works. Regardless of light level, eyes try to reach perfect focus, which does not change with different light levels.
It could easily be argued that overworking the eyes' muscles by trying to focus in dim light would lead to exhaustion or even spasm - see the hypothesis of William Bates. I don't accept that argument, but it has been seriously proposed.
Strange, isn't it? I thought it was new-age BS when I read that blue light tends to cure myopia in Linda Clark's The Ancient Art of Color Therapy (1981). 20 months ago I painted my house deep sky blue, and noticed after that staring at a blue wall for several hours, my vision was noticeably better. I'm over 60; this was a surprising result. I wonder what part of the eye is changing.
Considering only the myopia-hyperopia scale, myopia means only being able to focus at points closer than infinity. One weakness in the article is failing to give a number for the borderline of severe myopia, e.g. 10 diopters or whatever.
The widely-understood meaning of agoraphobia is fear of open spaces, and wikipedia says it's mostly that plus fear of crowds. I think you've cast your net a little too widely, as your definition seems to include claustrophobia.
If you are traveling at 0.9c relative to Earth, the speed of light is still 1.0c away from you in your frame of reference. No matter How fast you go relative to something else, the speed of light is always 1.0c away from you. That's just how the equations work out, speeds don't add arithmetically. That's why it's called relativity, speeds are relative to your frame of reference.