Sure, all it needs is one major revolution and the objections I'm raising cease to be relevant. But there are more. Like most genes' positive observable effects occur during development and childhood. And hacking humans isn't like hacking code. There's huge ethical risks. And careful applications of science have been our best tool for identifying the health benefits and risks of changes.
And quacks making extraordinary claims will crop up, as they always do, if popular opinion reflects positively on genetic engineering. A regulated market is almost inevitable. Backyard/grassroots hacking is the opposite of what will happen.
NIH is in addition to NSF funding. 25% of NSF funding goes to medical research. Just like DARPA doubles up on defense research. And NASA on aerospace.
And I did intentionally gloss over the fact that there are a few other major funding organizations out there for science grants, but I didn't want to get into the complex budgetary analysis that would involve, and the inevitable pedantic claims of comparing apples and oranges and whether certain allocations "count".
Focusing on the NSF seemed like a good way to make the primary point clearly, without making my post into a TLDR monstrosity.
Except, of course, that genetic engineering isn't that big a deal to those already born.
Unless you also have the tools to spread your clever genetic change to all of the several billion cells in your body at once, that is. We can use the insights of genetics to help poke and prod our body's behavior, but you can't just "hack" your genome and be done with it.
You might have pie-in-the-sky claims about gene therapy using retroviruses to supply the change, but unless you want those viruses to make you sick and destroy your cells to spread, you're going to need a lot of them.
Blah blah blah, all I'm hearing is "I don't have a remotely scientific explanation for the course of temperature changes through the 20th century, and that's a good reason to dismiss the primary scientific one"
Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers
on
China's Island Factory
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but we're a giant fucking empire. Sabre rattling to preserve hegemony is historically something every giant fucking empire did.
Now, back to that first link. About 1.75% of research funding goes to environmental research of any sort, which is the umbrella category for climate change research among a fuck-ton of others. half goes to defense research.
So if you want an "easy target" for money, there's your answer. Not paranoia about evil climate change researchers. Next is health, with a good 25%ish, which is the thing that this article whines about. So, yeah, change from an area that gets 25% of national research spending, to one that gets 2. Good job.
Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers
on
China's Island Factory
·
· Score: 2
Oh, that's part of it.
I mean, do you think it's not sabre rattling to sail one of our cruisers into a contested region?
China's sabre rattling in this region, Japan is sabre rattling in this region, we're sabre rattling in this region, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Koreas are playing along too.
Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers
on
China's Island Factory
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Because pure electric cars are new technology that are cool and interesting to read about. Because, for the moment, it still reads like an underdog story(not that I actually buy into that being true). Because are we really that interested in what, say, Microsoft is up to now?
Stop capitalizing Groups of People You Don't Like. It looks stupid as hell.
At any rate, honest, scientific analyses* of the costs and harms have been done, and it doesn't really endorse this lukewarm attitude.
*These are just summary versions, the actual details of how all these issues are computed requires more than just a 76 page picture book, and you'd have to peruse to the full version, and not only that, the couple hundred of reference citations of each of the chapters.
Now, if you actually did that, it's more effort than I've put into this particular question, which would actually justify these "You don't know what you mean" rants that are so common.
You're going to have to acknowledge you don't actually have any evidence of what you, personally, and not Some Capitalized Group That's Magically Uniform, are saying.
... but creationism is still the most popular worldview regarding the origin of life among US residents(with deity directed evolution coming in at #2). We won some hard fought court battles to keep it out of science classes, but when it comes to what people believe and vote on, that problem is completely unresolved.
Erm, sorta. A null hypothesis would be the "fallback" if the main hypothesis failed. What I'm saying is that these people who are so dedicated to denying what's going on, don't have a meaningful alternate prediction.
I'd argue at this point, man-made global warming is the null hypothesis. And the burden of proof has shifted.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, all it needs is one major revolution and the objections I'm raising cease to be relevant. But there are more. Like most genes' positive observable effects occur during development and childhood. And hacking humans isn't like hacking code. There's huge ethical risks. And careful applications of science have been our best tool for identifying the health benefits and risks of changes.
And quacks making extraordinary claims will crop up, as they always do, if popular opinion reflects positively on genetic engineering. A regulated market is almost inevitable. Backyard/grassroots hacking is the opposite of what will happen.
NIH is in addition to NSF funding. 25% of NSF funding goes to medical research. Just like DARPA doubles up on defense research. And NASA on aerospace.
And I did intentionally gloss over the fact that there are a few other major funding organizations out there for science grants, but I didn't want to get into the complex budgetary analysis that would involve, and the inevitable pedantic claims of comparing apples and oranges and whether certain allocations "count".
Focusing on the NSF seemed like a good way to make the primary point clearly, without making my post into a TLDR monstrosity.
Except, of course, that genetic engineering isn't that big a deal to those already born.
Unless you also have the tools to spread your clever genetic change to all of the several billion cells in your body at once, that is. We can use the insights of genetics to help poke and prod our body's behavior, but you can't just "hack" your genome and be done with it.
You might have pie-in-the-sky claims about gene therapy using retroviruses to supply the change, but unless you want those viruses to make you sick and destroy your cells to spread, you're going to need a lot of them.
Blah blah blah, all I'm hearing is "I don't have a remotely scientific explanation for the course of temperature changes through the 20th century, and that's a good reason to dismiss the primary scientific one"
Yes, but we're a giant fucking empire. Sabre rattling to preserve hegemony is historically something every giant fucking empire did.
So.. let's mod the idiot +4 insightful, because we're apparently dumbfucks who believe stupid-conspiracy theories about science funding.
So here's the Actual breakdown of NSF research funding(which is about 80% of their total funding, with the rest allocated to science education and overhead).
Now, back to that first link. About 1.75% of research funding goes to environmental research of any sort, which is the umbrella category for climate change research among a fuck-ton of others. half goes to defense research.
So if you want an "easy target" for money, there's your answer. Not paranoia about evil climate change researchers. Next is health, with a good 25%ish, which is the thing that this article whines about. So, yeah, change from an area that gets 25% of national research spending, to one that gets 2. Good job.
Oh, that's part of it.
I mean, do you think it's not sabre rattling to sail one of our cruisers into a contested region?
China's sabre rattling in this region, Japan is sabre rattling in this region, we're sabre rattling in this region, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Koreas are playing along too.
They're rattling an awful lot.
This is a bit like going "why talk about computers like they're new" in the 50s, because the babbage introduced the difference engine in 1822.
Hey, sometimes you just want to make a crash a little more literal.
Or a race condition.
Wouldn't that be exactly the cynicism I'm blaming on others? "Stupidity" is far too reductionist.
There's plenty of warming evidence I'll admit. What it all means is not exactly so clear and what impact it will have is even less clear.
What exactly do you think I linked, there? A debunking of something you imagined I imagined you said?
That link was a clear and straightforward presentation of the most likely negative consequences of human induced climate change.
I refuse to have one of those arguments where you're arguing with an imagined version of me.
Because pure electric cars are new technology that are cool and interesting to read about. Because, for the moment, it still reads like an underdog story(not that I actually buy into that being true). Because are we really that interested in what, say, Microsoft is up to now?
Right. Because... Actually I don't even know what conspiracy you could imagine someone engaging in.
Like I can't even come up with a sarcastic story for what's going on in your head.
Oh boo hoo, the city, quite reasonably, combined two projects that work on roads into one process. What financial malfeasance.
It doesn't even remotely keep creationists happy.
Who are you kidding? They still engage in organized pushes to teach creationism in science classes sometimes.
Stop capitalizing Groups of People You Don't Like. It looks stupid as hell.
At any rate, honest, scientific analyses* of the costs and harms have been done, and it doesn't really endorse this lukewarm attitude.
*These are just summary versions, the actual details of how all these issues are computed requires more than just a 76 page picture book, and you'd have to peruse to the full version, and not only that, the couple hundred of reference citations of each of the chapters.
Now, if you actually did that, it's more effort than I've put into this particular question, which would actually justify these "You don't know what you mean" rants that are so common.
You're going to have to acknowledge you don't actually have any evidence of what you, personally, and not Some Capitalized Group That's Magically Uniform, are saying.
This is so untrue it hurts.
They just had a crop of them elected to controlling offices in Australia, for example.
It's a good short sell opportunity.
Good, then keep your old one working. That's an easy job.
Or you could look at the IPCC analysis, and see that while it sucks balls, it's not an extinction event
Also didn't click the link.
Good job.
Thing gets predicted.
Thing happens.
Mindless Douchebag says: "Betcha didn't see that coming"
All you can do is roll your eyes.
... but creationism is still the most popular worldview regarding the origin of life among US residents(with deity directed evolution coming in at #2). We won some hard fought court battles to keep it out of science classes, but when it comes to what people believe and vote on, that problem is completely unresolved.
Erm, sorta. A null hypothesis would be the "fallback" if the main hypothesis failed. What I'm saying is that these people who are so dedicated to denying what's going on, don't have a meaningful alternate prediction.
I'd argue at this point, man-made global warming is the null hypothesis. And the burden of proof has shifted.
Okay, so that doesn't actually answer the question of whether you think this innane point is meaningful.
Either own it or don't defend it.