"If you "remove" them to prison, they are still a burden on society (and on the family left behind by their barbarism), and are certainly not removed from society (research the Aryan Brotherhood)."
Semantics. They are sufficiently removed from society as to not pose a threat to society anymore. Furthermore, to accept your reasoning as preferable, you would also have to accept that the 'burden they still have on society' you speak of outweighs the act of killing an innocent life (which without doubt happens sometimes). Such a notion (to prefer the chance of killing someone innocent to the 'burden' perpetrators would be in prison), is on itself barbaric in nature.
"Removing them permanently, while barbaric, rights their wrong and is the best solution for society as a whole."
This reasoning is contradictory. If it were true that permanently removing someone 'rights a wrong', then someone killing somebody else who killed before, would right a wrong too, and shouldn't be dragged to court. Since the state prosecutes such persons nevertheless - and even when they agree that person *did* kill a former murderer - they got sentenced to prison, and perhaps even to death themselves. This proves that the state, contrary to what you imply, does not accept the reasoning that it rights a wrong. And if they don't accept it of others, they shouldn't use it as an excuse for themselves neither.
"What I have trouble getting past is race after race that all speak English,";-)
I understand completely; in reality such a thing would be utterly absurd. But then again, this is a bit the same thing as like I was saying about aliens so alien that nobody would understand it. If they would make a TV-show where every alien (or even human future race) would speak a more plausable language of some sorts, no living sole (in real life, when watching the show, I mean) could understand what they would be saying. So far for any intelligent conversations, then:-).
Now, to the defence of Farscape: in the very first episode the aliens *were* speaking alien. I think they solved the problem (they couldn't keep doing that, obviously) with some device or creature which would settle in the brain and 'translate' everything. One can discuss the unlikliness of such a device/creature, but that 'trick' is a lot less hard to swallow then english-speaking aliens. Most other SF-series with aliens don't even bother.
Come to think of it; ok, firefly took the easy way out, and didn't introduce any aliens (maybe they're actually being more realistic in that, agreed). And the 'chinese' as vulgar language is a nice touch, though it seems to be nothing more than, indeed, a touch. Come to think of it, while their onboard computervoice mumbled some chinees, I never heard any of the other characters speak any chinese.anyway, I don't have the same dislike of aliens in an SF-story; the point of aliens, even if they look rather human-like (in that respect, Farscape was not all that bad neither; the aliens there were far less humanoid, then, say, those of startrek NG where almost ALL are extremely human-like (being in reality just humans with make-up) were. At least most of the puppets diverted more of the human form then the typically human-with-make-up aliens do). Thus, the point of those aliens is that they lend themselves extremely well to exploiting some concepts that would otherwise be more difficult to swallow if it were mere humans (such as my exapmle from the Borg).
"and characters that act in ways that do not seem even close to what I understand of human nature."
Well, that's because they're alien characters! And there you were, complaining that you wanted something else than human drives and emotions!
j/k;-)
"'m more interested in a believable and interesting atmosphere than an alien one."
I think there we disgress the most. At least when it comes down to evaluating the value of a *SF*-show. You're basically saying what I said (apart from thos times they actually used the SF setting as an integral part): the SF is largely background noise, and is irrelevant to the actual story. Now, while you found the atmosphere interesting, while I did not (most of the time), it is perfectly possible to have exactly the same 'believable and interesting atmosphere' in Firefly, whether it is an SF or not. That's exactly one of my gripes with it. In fact, if it's about a believable and interesting atmosphere, they would better have scrapped the SF part, and it could have become even more believable.
Well, ok, we both know were we stand. I don't think you're arguments are all wrong on themselves, it's just that we seem to focus on other things when evaluating an SF (though I bet we both like Bladerunner;-). It could be that don't give enough slack; it's been a while, and maybe I should re-see them again - though this probably would be more correct of the BG episodes, since I only viewed a handful (because I think those really suck, but who knows, maybe I saw just the 5 worst episodes of the series). I DID force myself to see every episode of firefly, though, even though I thought most were not very good. Can you say the same about Farscape?;-)
It was nice talking to you!
Btw, unrelated; the 99bottlesofbeerinmyF...what does the 'F' stand for?:-)
Yes, but if you say 'remove', it means removing him out of society so he/she no longer poses a threat. In that case, as a state, you have other possibilities to remove a perpetrator of a crime from society then killing him/her. The fact that a state uses the same permanent kind of 'removal' as those perpetrators whome that same state considers barbaric, means that they themselves should be considered barbaric.
Well, I was pondering about why you would want to count the death penality in function of a per capita calculation.
Anyway, let's not dodge the ball!;-)
You said: "BTW, if you count countries, then most democratic countries do not have the death penalty, but if you count population then most of the democratic world has the death penalty (the US, Japan, and India, alone make up more than 2/3s of the democratic world)."
Note the "*has* the death penalty". Thus, it was not about what governments 'allow'. I'm sure the USA allows the EU to have capital punishment as well, but that doesn't mean we have it.
Thus, I'll repeat my question: did you incorporate (= left out) all the populace living in the states in the USA and India that don't have the death sentence? If you count population and not the countries, as you said, then it doesn't matter whether the country allows it, it matters if the population has it. If states don't have the death penalty, then obviously, the populace in those states don't have it either (as far as they're living there). If, say, half of the states (and thus the people in those states) would turn out not to have the death sentence, it's obvious your conlusion would not be correct.
"BTW, if you count countries, then most democratic countries do not have the death penalty, but if you count population then most of the democratic world has the death penalty "
Huh? Since when is is the legal system dependend on per capita basis?
Besides, did you count in (or rather out) all the states (well, follow your reasoning, all the people from those states) in the USA where capital punishment has been abolished? And doesn't India have states too, where laws differ?
barbaric/brbærk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bahr-bar-ik] -adjective
1. without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive: barbaric invaders. 2. of, like, or befitting barbarians: a barbaric empire; barbaric practices. 3. Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner.
Ofcourse, you are right that this 'proves' nothing, unless one is of the opinion, that killing another human being while one has the equal option of not killing him, while it's impossibly to prevent that innocent lives will be killed as well, is basically an action of state-sponsored revenge, and thus it's an action which exhibits a primitive influence, as well as marked by crudeness.
You, however, can be of the opinion that the government sponsored killings of humans is an act of civilisation. Feel free to do so.
Finally someone who disagrees with my criticsm in a normal way. I didn't know what happend when my post suddenly got -30% flamebait after first getting +4 interesting. I was like: "What the...flamebait???" I mean, as I already said to another poster; I can understand that people disagree with my criticism on firefly and the new BG; it's still largely a matter of taste, after all. But I gave my honest opinion, trying to balance the different SF-shows, and I argumented why I came to that conclusion/critique. I'm rather stupified at the reaction I got, though I probably should have know since this is slashdot, and you always have some irrational fanboys who think they have to make a point by turning a post into 'flamebait'.
I do find it intresting how people differ in opinion, like you, who is clearly also a moderate, rational poster and not reacting from a fan-boy standpoint.
It seems clear that we have other things we appreciate, or that we find annoying, in SF. I can follow you a bit when you say it's strange that aliens would have the same drives as humans... it could be that aliens have totally different drives, which we couldn't possibly understand. But then again, it has to remain a TV-show which is watchable and understandle for earth viewers, after all. I mean, say there's a TV-show where aliens are standing still the whole time and doing nothing but blink with his appendices that vaguely look like eyes. Maybe that is an expression of a total alien way of thinking, or the result of (to us) completely unknown drives and emotions...but hardly anyone would actually watch it.
I hope you see my point; even SF TV-shows are made for a human populace, and that populace has to understand what the characters are doing and what drives them, and they'll only understand that, if it *is* about human-like emotions and drives. A drive or emotion that we can't recognise as such, isn't an emotion or a drive, for us. And I don't think it's possible to have a drive or emotion potrayed in an SF-serie which in some way, can't also be seen as a drive/emotion of humans; in that sense, it's impossible to give made-up aliens truelly alien drives and emotions.
I mean, take the Borg of startrek NG: you could say, well, those have another drive then humans...but is it? In fact, the concept of the Borg explores a fear of losing ones' identity, and deals with the individual versus group polemic. This is not really a (to us) alien drive or emotion or concept, thus. And, for the reasons given, it can't be. It WAS portrayed and put forward in a novel way, however... but then again, so are many of the drives and emotions and concepts in Farscape (for instance, the concept of a shizofrenic nature when Crichton was implanted with a neurochip). Similar concepts that explore the (essentially) human condition in novel ways are far between in Firefly, and even further away in GM.
As for the 'cheesy'... I'm not sure what you mean, and I suspect this one is highly subjective. I did say I had some quircks with it, and one of those was, that in some episodes, it was a bit too much fantasy, and too little science for an SF. Also, I like consistency, where Farscape was fairly good at, but sometimes (like with the episode that was actually a cartoon) it needed a bit TOO much scrapping of rational thought. Which is why I have used that example of the tie in BG too. I know, one could say; that doesn't matter at all. In a certain sense, this is true; the story itself could still be entertaining (which it wasn't). But then again, this is intellectual laziness, and it suposes a degree of suspension of disbelief I simply can not muster.
I think you have the same feeling, but directed in another aspect, as I see your complaint about the 'puppets' and characters needing to be 'believable people'. In this respect, I have a lot less difficulty; in SF and fantasy, you always have to part with *some* disbelief, but the main point is, that, once you acept the given surroundings/story, it must be consistent. Thus, I have no trouble a
European countries (well, their governments) are ubelievably hypocritic in this regard. I think it's just because, time after time, they buckle to USA pressure. Not all that long ago, a EU-citizen was extradited to the USA, facing a possible deathsentence (acording to US laws). It is clearly stated, in many national laws, but also as an European law, that NO EU-citizens may be extradited to countruies which implement the death-sentence. Luckily, there are only a hanful of barbaric states left who do such a thing, such as china and N.-Korea, etc. Even fewer countries which claim to be democratic still practise it, such as...the USA.
But, what did they do? The govenments made a deal, where the USA 'promised' they wouldn't actually deal out the capital punishment to that citizen. That was *before* any sentence on guilt or lack thereof was made. Actually, this should anger americans as much, because this means their government arbitrarily decided to NOT treat a person who (alledgely) commited crimes on USA soil according to their own law, and that that EU-person got an illegal advantage which no ordinary US citizen gets.
For me, however, the anger comes at the fact they *did* extradite him to the USA, clearly in violation of the rules and laws of that country and the EU. If the USA wanted him so badly, they could abolish the death penalty. speaking of which, if I'm not mistaken, some more progressive non-bible-belt states in the USA already have forbidden such practises, as any civilised society would do. Or does it ultimately remain a federal decision? Maybe some US slashdotters can fill me in on this.
Well, at least it's more reasonable to asume a different culture will come up with different clothing-habits, than that they will somehow have *exactly* the same non-functional piece of clothing which is only a contemporary statussymbol for managers and the like in western countries on Earth, which even here only started during the 20th century.
But, hey, you might be right: maybe a tie is a prerequisite, like an universal genetic adaptation as the epithome of evolution, for any living being in the universe aspiring to get up the social ladder!;-)
I'm not completely following you with your "Add to that the fact that covering all of the arable land with PV or wind farms"... I thought I made it clear in my conclusion that we aren't restricted to arable landmass, for many alternative energy-sources? In fact, in the case of windmills, they are far more efficient when they are placed out in the sea. There is really no reason why one have to use arable landmass for that; the coast, sea, along rivers, deserted or mountain-like area's do the job often better.
My long term hope is fusion as well.
I also agree with your statement about self-imposed birth-control (due to education, use of contraceptivs, etc.); it is quite possible this happens. And in fact, I sincerely hope it does, because otherwise, as I have pointed out, NOTHING will help in getting rid of the energy problem if the human worldpopulation keeps expanding at the same rate infinitely.
But, while I hope on a similar mentality-change in regard to other countries following the birth-rate of western countries, it must also be noted that in many european countries the birth-rate has been gone up again for the last decade. (This could be a mere fluke, though).
If they don't feel like reading, why would they read your 'translation'?
Your 'translation' is not a very good one, at that. For instance, if it were about emotion, I wouldn't have praised Farscape because it has an emotional ring to it, neither would I have indicated that startrek, for all the good things it had, was a bit too cerebral. That goes directly against your claim of what I said, in such a flagrant way, that I suspect you either did not read that part, or are wilfully trolling me. I repeat: if I disliked shows which deal with emotion, as you falsely claim, I wouldn't have praised Farscape for exactly that reason.
Furthermore, instead of 'not enough technobabble' (as you claim I used as criterium, though I didn't even imply it once) I based my critique (among many other things) on the fact that many of the episodes of GM and firefly fail to explore the oportunities where SF lends itself for by exellence, and are rather run-of-the-mill soapseries (in content) which are merely happen to be set against an SF-background.
I would understand that you (and others, no doubt) don't agree with my criticism, and, since it's ultimately based on taste (for instance, people may like ordinary-soap-like SF), it is inevitable that this will happen. But at least you should have the intellectual honesty to 'translate' my post correctly.
While I applaud you're appeal for energy-efficiency, as I stated in another post similar to yours: the conclusion just DOES NOT follow the used reasoning. For instance, as long as the worldpopulation continues to have a growing trend, WHATEVER efficient energy-conservation you'll get (unless it's 100%, which is completely impossible for any living entity) you are merely posponing the problem you yourself indicated.
to put it simple, what you are saying is: "n people squander away x amount of energy, and the demand is rising with y% amount every year. If we would reduce the squandering to half the amount and the y% to one tenth, we have a solution for the ever growing demand of energy.
This is, of course, obviously only true if n people remains the same. The greater *efficiency* of machinery and activities, however, can never be a solution if there is an increasing amount of machinery or activities, EVEN if those activities/machinery on themselves are becoming more effcicient and conserve more energy then they used to.
Thus, what your proposal amounts to is that, should people willingly restrict their comfort (e.g. they use less machines or do less activities which consume energy). While that's a noblme thought, I think humans show a poor track record of limiting themselves. You yourself, after all, did not decide to not buy a computer, even though it's yet another machinery that uses electricity - neither did you throw out your TV to remain at an equilibrium; you just ADDED a new piece of technology which added a new amount of electricity-usuage.
But, EVEN if humans would go against their nature and manage to restrict their immer-growing lust for aditional comfort and gadgets, it STILL ouldn't help, as long as the human population keeps expanding. Even at the barest minimal energy-usuage per person, if populationgrowth keeps rising, sooner or later you'll arive at exactly the same point, where there is not enough energy-supply to cover the demand. Good luck with imposing worldwide birthcontrol.
While I think energy-conservation/eficiency is very useful on itself, and can be valuable at posponing a possible energy-crisis, it should be in conjuction with (new) methods of getting a higher enery-production. Just conservation without adding and providing new energy-sources just won't cut it. In fact, the reverse would be more true: as long as you find ways of delivering more energy (for instance, from outer space/sun), you can keep going (though, obviously, an exponential growth is impossible to maintain).
I have no doubt that, as a society, we will continue to need more and more energy (bar a catastrophic period where society as we know it gets destroyed or return to a pre-industrial state). I have no solution in the long run (unless infinite expansion, even into space) to continue to provide our energy, but in the short and midlong term, it will have to be a combination of energy-conservation WITHOUT loss of comfort (e.g. if one has the same computer which uses 500 watt, or 50 watt, people will not mind, and probably chose for the the less-consuming one. Give the choice of a computer of 500 watt and NO computer, people will chose for the 500 watt computer), and new energysources which will have to provide a lot more energy to cope with the demand - which will happen even if per unit things get more energy-efficient.
"The latest trend I saw is directly blaming the "rich", which pretty much includes most of us with computers and the time to argue on slashdot."
I wasn't aware arguing on slashdot is an indication that one is rich! I rather thought it indicated unemployement or being a geek without a girlfriend!
Now it turns out we're *all* rich elitists, while I used to think I was the only notable exeption in an ocean of pathetic mommies'basement-nerds and lazy bums!
I, for one, welcome my newly discovered fellow capitalist pigs!;-)
While your link was interesting, and your comment (on itself) correct, mind you that the prent poster, as well as the original poster he responed to, talk about 'Using biofuels', not specifically about biofuel made from corn.
While, for arguments' sake, I will accept your numbers about how much energy we will need in the future, you're conclusion doesn't really follow your reasoning.
"That is just not possible and proves that our way of life is NOT sustainable in the long run without drastic reductions in energy use or population"
It is not sustainable when you follow two premises: that biofuel is the only way to go, and that reduction in energy is the only way that could be a solution of sustaining our way of life.
Both are untrue.
First of all, it is highly unlikely that no other energy-sources will be developed then bio-fuel for *all* our energy-requirements. In fact, apart from a replacement for our current petrol (thus, mainly for the use in cars) - which on itself may be temporary untill hydrogen cars are developed, or maybe they will keep a part of the market as far as the diesel is concerned, it can already be seen that the production of energy (electricity, for instance) is not only limited to biofuel.
Now, take your numbers again. What happens to it if you put all other possible alternative sources into it: solarpanels which tranform the suns' rays directly into electricity? Wind enery provided by turbines? Turbines who use the waves of the sea? And maybe in the future even nuclear fusion?
While we don't know how succesful any of those alternatives really will become, it is a fact that we're already exploring them, and that we do NOT rely on biofuel alone. Thus, they are variables in the equation you have not calculated in. I'm not against reducing our energy-footprint, mind you; actually I'm all for making and doing things that cost less energy...but your conclusion just doesn't follow if you accept that there are myriads of other ways in which we could augment our energy-output. It may well be possible that our current lifestyle is sustainable, even without any reductions in energy-use. (Of course, if the population keeps exponentially growing, at some point it becomes unstainable; but note that this is also the case with reduced energy-consumption; an infinite exponential growth just isn't possible toi maintian).
Obviously, we don't need a better then 20% net efficiency for sunlight based on conversion to organic material, if other alternatives aren't based on biofuel. And equally obviously, we have more then the bands of arable landmass to our disposal if energy is (also) derived from sources that do not require arable landmass.
the "(though at least they did made it seem as if you were watching eastenders)" should obviously be: "(though at least they didn't make it seem as if you were watching eastenders)"
As a longstanding SF fan, I have always had difficulties understanding the popularity of Firefly. I've watched countless SF-TVshows and movies, from star trek to starwars, to blakes' seven to battlestar galactica (the old one) to stargate...and frankly, I think starfly was one of the worst SF-TV episodes I have ever seen, with the possible exeption of the new battlestar galactica.
I'm actually wondering if this is some new trend in SF on TV. I mean, for gods' sake; look at the latest BG; half of the time it is about nothing; it's like any other melodramatic soap like there are 13 a dozen of, with a very light sauce of SF poured over it. It's like "friends" or "desperate housewifes" in space. It's full of overacting, the science in the SF is completely wrong; not that that is uncommon, but what's worse, it's wrong in a mundane way. The first time I saw the new BG, I saw a man entering an office having a tedious conversation about complete trivial things (and not even acting good at it); the episode was half over before anything happend that indicated that it was an SF, instead of yet another run-of-the-mill "neighbours" or "the office".
What I remind best is, that once I gathered it was an SF, I thought how unbelievably stupid it was that the man entering was dressed exactly as a contemporary yuppie/businesman of today and he was wearing a *tie*. A tie, for gods' sake! Only a T-shirt with 'nike' on it could have been more ludicrous. They're living thousands of lightyears away, have superiour technology, have not had any contect with earth for thousands of years, and he's wearing a goddamn tie? And every other prop is exactly like what you get at walmart?
The surroundings, the content, the overacting, the whole impression that show makes is that of an amaturistic soap serie which the creators happen to have placed in space, instead of the earth as the next 'the bold and beauty' clone.
Now, firefly is better then that (the overacting is less, for one), but it still isn't great. Contrary to the new BG, I did my best to watch most of the episodes. There is only one or two I thought were really good. The rest... I don't know. again, it's so mundain. The SF seting is just there as background noise, really. For instance, episode after episode, they land on a planet which is...well...just an ordinary setting; I mean, do away with the few scenes where the spaceship lands and launches, and you could as well be watching a western, or a film about farmers who are exploited by their current lord. Most of the time, it's just boring.
The best SF-film ever, was bladerunner; at least there, SF was an integral part of the film. Not because of flashy spaceships or technology shown (though at least they did made it seem as if you were watching eastenders), but because they explored the question of what it meant to be human, when does a machine become human, what ethics could be followed in the future, etc.
Even startrek NG did a far better job at exploring the endless opportunities which new cultures, aliens, viewpoints on world/universe and the place we take in it, futuristic ethical questions, etc. could provide. It may have lacked a bit of an emotional ring to it (it was pretty cerebral most of the times), but all in all, I liked it far more then those newish 'SF'-series. It was clearly an SF, which explored things that were only possible in an SF-seting. They didn't transplant a western or mundain soap opera into an SF-setting just to be able to call it an SF, at least.
As for the best SF-TVshow which *does* have an emotional ring to it, that is without any doubt Farscape. That SF-show is really one of the best I've ever seen, especially when scorpius gets into it. The acting was great, the settings were very awe-inspiring in an alien way - sometimes outright weird, as one should expect when we're in another part of the galaxy, most of the alien characters were unbelievably original, there was a good mix of character-interaction and classic SF-action, coppled with a dose of suspence and my
"Only creationists use phrases like "evolutionism" and "darwinistic evolution."
Your lying. Seriously. Kenan Malik uses 'evolutionism', and one can hardly claim he's a creationist. As an atheist, it would be rather difficult for me to believe in ID.
Being not native english, I'm not sure what you're getting at; are you implying the terminology is wrong? When I check in an online english dictionary, I see:
evolutionism (v'-l'sh-nz'm, 'v-) Pronunciation Key n. 1)A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin. 2)Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.
Seems to me to be totally correct, then.
Mind you, if the term 'evolutionism' is more used by (english-speaking) creationists, it would explain why most of the replies I get try to explain things as if I were a child or a retard.;-)
No, I don't understand it in reverse order. Sigh. This is why I'm never keen to ask anything on slashdot for specific knowledge; one is always treated like some retard, even by people with the best of intentions. I mean, I know that a mutation in a white cell will not pass on to any offspring; that was what I said with my example of organs (the heart). And I know evolution is a very slow process.
Anyway, you are just trying to be helpful, I suppose. People seem to be a bit on the wrong track whith what I'm asking (maybe I explained it wrongly). I'm quite aware of how the way evolution works, and the importance of genes, but I would like to know the specifics how a mutation is transferred by a queen, which is only usuable to worker-ants...the point I'm getting at (but which I would like confirmation on), is that all the mutations should be in the genes of the queen, but none of it comes to expression in the phenology of the queen...at least, this is what I think is the case.
I think your last sentence was the most to the point. As I already posted to others: worker ants can be higly specialised; for instance, I've seen ants in the form of (relative) giant sacs which only were useful for storing some sweet excrement other ants gave them. The queen herself, would die with that mutation of the storage-ant (and thus would be unable to pass on any mutations); what is a good adaptation for such a worker-ant, isn't necessarily the case for the queen; if it is passed queen from queen, then how does it get such kind of specialised ants without itself having that mutation? Following my reasoning, all the mutations of all the different workers are in the genes of the queen (and her eggs), but she herself expresses none of the phenology of it. Is that the case, I wonder?
While I admit I didn't read it yet, I'm aware of it's content, and I know there is a lot of critique on it as well. I had a sample of that criticism in the book I'm reading now, which is 'man, beast and zombie'...something I would recommend reading to everyone as well.
Anyway, people seem to be a bit on the wrong track whith what I'm asking (maybe I explained it wrongly). I'm quite aware of how the way evolution works, and the importance of genes, but I would like to know the specifics how a mutation is transferred by a queen, which is only usuable to worker-ants...the point I'm getting at (but which I would like confirmation), is that all the mutations are in the genes of the queen, but none of it comes to expression in the phenology of the queen...at least, this is what I think is the explanation.
Well, simple enough...ermm...that's to say...can you elaborate, using an actual example of how that would actually happen?
For instance, like me example:
"Say the ancestors of the current ants were more simple, less specialised. At a certain moment, in the DNA of a queen-egg, there occurs a mutation; this mutuation turns out to be beneficial - say, the worker-ant develops an enzym which is far more efficient in providing digestable nutrients from raw food, for instance. Now, that ant lives its life, then dies...since workers are unfertile, they don't mate with the queen, and they don't pass on their beneficial mutation."
So, using that example in your explanation, the mutation is...where? In the egg of a parent (normal) queen who in turn develops into a queen? So she now has an enzyme which makes it more efficient for her to digest raw food, only, she doesn't eat raw food, like worker ants...You see, that's where I don't get it: worker ants can be higly specialised, for instance, I've seen ants in the form of (relative) giant sacs which only were useful for storing some sweet excrement other ants gave them. Clearly, a queen having that mutation would die. So how are genes passed, which would be detrimental to the queen, but beneficial to the workers (and the hive as a whole)?
The queen, after all, would die with that mutation of a storage-ant (and thus would be unable to pass on any mutations); what is a good adaptation for such a worker-ant, isn't necessarily the case for the queen; if it is passed queen from queen, as you say, then how does it get such kind of specialised ants without itself having that mutation? Are you implying that all the mutations of all the different workers are in the genes of the queen (and her eggs), but she herself expresses none of the phenology of it?
Since it handles microbes and DNA, it's mildly related:
You know, pondering about evolution, there is only one thing I have difficulty understanding with evolutionism (which I am a strong proponent of). I don't know if you're a biologist or not, but if someone could give me a good explanation I would be glad.
In the case of social groups of insects, like bees and ants, you have different classes/groups of individual insects within one hive, some of which are highly specialised. I can't quite understand how that works, using darwinistic evolution. When one follows the theory of evolutionism with, say, mammals, it makes sense: a genetic change in sperm or egg can lead to an indivdual who is less or more adapted to their environment, and this indivdual passes those traits to his/her offspring.
But, in the case of social insects like ants, you have one queen (and usually one dar) who supplies all the sperm and eggs that the queen uses to create her offspring, resulting in sometimes very specialised ants/bees. But how did that specialisation come about in a heritary sense, when those specialised ants are unfertile, and can't reproduce themselves?
So, how does it work? Say, the queen lays an egg, which has a mutation in it, which evolves into a more specialised ant which is beneficial for the whole hive. Very well. The hive survives better through it. But HOW does that ant give its benefical adaptation/specialisation to any offspring, when it can't reproduce?
One could argue: a hive is like an organ on itself, and a mutation for an improved organ is also present in cells for other organs.
And well, yes, but that's because the DNA for that improved organ has its origin in the spermcel or eggcell (well, the mutation of their DNA, that is), comming from a parent organism. In the case of hive-insects, where the egg of the mutated-and-better-adapted worker-ant comes out, there is no way that infertile worker could be the parent to transmit his mutation throughout any other offspring. Thus, there is no parent - which is different with the analogy of the organs you gave. The right analogy would be, that a sudden mutation hits the organ (say, the heart) itself, and it starts working better (and thus, is beneficial).
But then the same problem arises; it's not possible for the mutation of the heart-organ, beneficial as it might be for the whole organism, to pass the mutation to any offspring, because it's *only a mutation happening in sperm and eggcells* which can provide the mechanism of transmitting a mutuation to any offspring. The mutation of the heart doesn't suddenly transfer, nor does it infuse itself into the DNA of the spermcell.
So, the main problem remains. To give a clear example of what I mean; let's say the ancestors of those ants were more simple, less specialised. At a certain moment, in the DNA of a queen-egg, there occurs a mutation; this mutuation turns out to be beneficial - say, the worker-ant develops an enzym which is far more efficient in providing digestable nutrients from raw food, for instance. Now, that ant lives its life, then dies...since workers are unfertile, they don't mate with the queen, and they don't pass on their beneficial mutation.
So how the heck did those specialised ants come to be, and how do they (the next generation) keep existing in the next hive(s)? Any biologists around who can give a clear explanation of how darwinistic evolution works with hive-insects?
"A mutation for an improved organ is also present in cells for other organs."
Yes, but that's because the DNA for that improved organ has its origin in the spermcel or eggcell (well, the mutation of their DNA, that is), comming from a parent organism. In the case of hive-insects, where the egg of the mutated-and-better-adapted worker-ant comes out, there is no way that infertile worker could be the parent to transmit his mutation throughout any other offspring. Thus, there is no parent - which is different with the analogy of the organs you gave. The right analogy would be, that a sudden mutation hits the organ (say, the heart) itself, and it starts working better (and thus, is beneficial).
But then the same problem arises; it's not possible for the mutation of the heart-organ, beneficial as it might be for the whole organism, to pass the mutation to any offspring, because it's *only a mutation happening in sperm and eggcells* which can provide the mechanism of transmitting a mutuation to any offspring. The mutation of the heart doesn't suddenly transfer, nor does it infuse itself into the DNA of the spermcell.
So, the main problem remains. To give a clear example of what I mean; let's say the ancestors of those ants were more simple, less specialised. At a certain moment, in the DNA of a queen-egg, there occurs a mutation; this mutuation turns out to be beneficial - say, the worker-ant develops an enzym which is far more efficient in providing digestable nutrients from raw food, for instance. Now, that ant lives its life, then dies...since workers are unfertile, they don't mate with the queen, and they don't pass on their beneficial mutation.
So how the heck did those specialised ants come to be, and how do they (the next generation) keep existing in the next hive(s)?
Slashdot Mirror
"So what is a "civilized" society to do to protect itself from the evil machinations of such individuals?"
Beef up their security.
"If you "remove" them to prison, they are still a burden on society (and on the family left behind by their barbarism), and are certainly not removed from society (research the Aryan Brotherhood)."
Semantics. They are sufficiently removed from society as to not pose a threat to society anymore. Furthermore, to accept your reasoning as preferable, you would also have to accept that the 'burden they still have on society' you speak of outweighs the act of killing an innocent life (which without doubt happens sometimes). Such a notion (to prefer the chance of killing someone innocent to the 'burden' perpetrators would be in prison), is on itself barbaric in nature.
"Removing them permanently, while barbaric, rights their wrong and is the best solution for society as a whole."
This reasoning is contradictory. If it were true that permanently removing someone 'rights a wrong', then someone killing somebody else who killed before, would right a wrong too, and shouldn't be dragged to court. Since the state prosecutes such persons nevertheless - and even when they agree that person *did* kill a former murderer - they got sentenced to prison, and perhaps even to death themselves. This proves that the state, contrary to what you imply, does not accept the reasoning that it rights a wrong. And if they don't accept it of others, they shouldn't use it as an excuse for themselves neither.
"What I have trouble getting past is race after race that all speak English," ;-)
:-).
;-)
;-). It could be that don't give enough slack; it's been a while, and maybe I should re-see them again - though this probably would be more correct of the BG episodes, since I only viewed a handful (because I think those really suck, but who knows, maybe I saw just the 5 worst episodes of the series). I DID force myself to see every episode of firefly, though, even though I thought most were not very good. Can you say the same about Farscape? ;-)
:-)
I understand completely; in reality such a thing would be utterly absurd. But then again, this is a bit the same thing as like I was saying about aliens so alien that nobody would understand it. If they would make a TV-show where every alien (or even human future race) would speak a more plausable language of some sorts, no living sole (in real life, when watching the show, I mean) could understand what they would be saying. So far for any intelligent conversations, then
Now, to the defence of Farscape: in the very first episode the aliens *were* speaking alien. I think they solved the problem (they couldn't keep doing that, obviously) with some device or creature which would settle in the brain and 'translate' everything. One can discuss the unlikliness of such a device/creature, but that 'trick' is a lot less hard to swallow then english-speaking aliens. Most other SF-series with aliens don't even bother.
Come to think of it; ok, firefly took the easy way out, and didn't introduce any aliens (maybe they're actually being more realistic in that, agreed). And the 'chinese' as vulgar language is a nice touch, though it seems to be nothing more than, indeed, a touch. Come to think of it, while their onboard computervoice mumbled some chinees, I never heard any of the other characters speak any chinese.anyway, I don't have the same dislike of aliens in an SF-story; the point of aliens, even if they look rather human-like (in that respect, Farscape was not all that bad neither; the aliens there were far less humanoid, then, say, those of startrek NG where almost ALL are extremely human-like (being in reality just humans with make-up) were. At least most of the puppets diverted more of the human form then the typically human-with-make-up aliens do). Thus, the point of those aliens is that they lend themselves extremely well to exploiting some concepts that would otherwise be more difficult to swallow if it were mere humans (such as my exapmle from the Borg).
"and characters that act in ways that do not seem even close to what I understand of human nature."
Well, that's because they're alien characters! And there you were, complaining that you wanted something else than human drives and emotions!
j/k
"'m more interested in a believable and interesting atmosphere than an alien one."
I think there we disgress the most. At least when it comes down to evaluating the value of a *SF*-show. You're basically saying what I said (apart from thos times they actually used the SF setting as an integral part): the SF is largely background noise, and is irrelevant to the actual story. Now, while you found the atmosphere interesting, while I did not (most of the time), it is perfectly possible to have exactly the same 'believable and interesting atmosphere' in Firefly, whether it is an SF or not. That's exactly one of my gripes with it. In fact, if it's about a believable and interesting atmosphere, they would better have scrapped the SF part, and it could have become even more believable.
Well, ok, we both know were we stand. I don't think you're arguments are all wrong on themselves, it's just that we seem to focus on other things when evaluating an SF (though I bet we both like Bladerunner
It was nice talking to you!
Btw, unrelated; the 99bottlesofbeerinmyF...what does the 'F' stand for?
Yes, but if you say 'remove', it means removing him out of society so he/she no longer poses a threat. In that case, as a state, you have other possibilities to remove a perpetrator of a crime from society then killing him/her. The fact that a state uses the same permanent kind of 'removal' as those perpetrators whome that same state considers barbaric, means that they themselves should be considered barbaric.
Aha! But you did feel like reading, thus? Even if it was his scewed and admittedly short translation? ;-)
Well, I was pondering about why you would want to count the death penality in function of a per capita calculation.
;-)
Anyway, let's not dodge the ball!
You said: "BTW, if you count countries, then most democratic countries do not have the death penalty, but if you count population then most of the democratic world has the death penalty (the US, Japan, and India, alone make up more than 2/3s of the democratic world)."
Note the "*has* the death penalty". Thus, it was not about what governments 'allow'. I'm sure the USA allows the EU to have capital punishment as well, but that doesn't mean we have it.
Thus, I'll repeat my question: did you incorporate (= left out) all the populace living in the states in the USA and India that don't have the death sentence? If you count population and not the countries, as you said, then it doesn't matter whether the country allows it, it matters if the population has it. If states don't have the death penalty, then obviously, the populace in those states don't have it either (as far as they're living there). If, say, half of the states (and thus the people in those states) would turn out not to have the death sentence, it's obvious your conlusion would not be correct.
"BTW, if you count countries, then most democratic countries do not have the death penalty, but if you count population then most of the democratic world has the death penalty "
Huh? Since when is is the legal system dependend on per capita basis?
Besides, did you count in (or rather out) all the states (well, follow your reasoning, all the people from those states) in the USA where capital punishment has been abolished? And doesn't India have states too, where laws differ?
barbaric /brbærk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bahr-bar-ik]
-adjective
1. without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive: barbaric invaders.
2. of, like, or befitting barbarians: a barbaric empire; barbaric practices.
3. Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner.
Ofcourse, you are right that this 'proves' nothing, unless one is of the opinion, that killing another human being while one has the equal option of not killing him, while it's impossibly to prevent that innocent lives will be killed as well, is basically an action of state-sponsored revenge, and thus it's an action which exhibits a primitive influence, as well as marked by crudeness.
You, however, can be of the opinion that the government sponsored killings of humans is an act of civilisation. Feel free to do so.
Finally someone who disagrees with my criticsm in a normal way. I didn't know what happend when my post suddenly got -30% flamebait after first getting +4 interesting. I was like: "What the...flamebait???" I mean, as I already said to another poster; I can understand that people disagree with my criticism on firefly and the new BG; it's still largely a matter of taste, after all. But I gave my honest opinion, trying to balance the different SF-shows, and I argumented why I came to that conclusion/critique. I'm rather stupified at the reaction I got, though I probably should have know since this is slashdot, and you always have some irrational fanboys who think they have to make a point by turning a post into 'flamebait'.
I do find it intresting how people differ in opinion, like you, who is clearly also a moderate, rational poster and not reacting from a fan-boy standpoint.
It seems clear that we have other things we appreciate, or that we find annoying, in SF. I can follow you a bit when you say it's strange that aliens would have the same drives as humans... it could be that aliens have totally different drives, which we couldn't possibly understand. But then again, it has to remain a TV-show which is watchable and understandle for earth viewers, after all. I mean, say there's a TV-show where aliens are standing still the whole time and doing nothing but blink with his appendices that vaguely look like eyes. Maybe that is an expression of a total alien way of thinking, or the result of (to us) completely unknown drives and emotions...but hardly anyone would actually watch it.
I hope you see my point; even SF TV-shows are made for a human populace, and that populace has to understand what the characters are doing and what drives them, and they'll only understand that, if it *is* about human-like emotions and drives. A drive or emotion that we can't recognise as such, isn't an emotion or a drive, for us. And I don't think it's possible to have a drive or emotion potrayed in an SF-serie which in some way, can't also be seen as a drive/emotion of humans; in that sense, it's impossible to give made-up aliens truelly alien drives and emotions.
I mean, take the Borg of startrek NG: you could say, well, those have another drive then humans...but is it? In fact, the concept of the Borg explores a fear of losing ones' identity, and deals with the individual versus group polemic. This is not really a (to us) alien drive or emotion or concept, thus. And, for the reasons given, it can't be. It WAS portrayed and put forward in a novel way, however... but then again, so are many of the drives and emotions and concepts in Farscape (for instance, the concept of a shizofrenic nature when Crichton was implanted with a neurochip). Similar concepts that explore the (essentially) human condition in novel ways are far between in Firefly, and even further away in GM.
As for the 'cheesy'... I'm not sure what you mean, and I suspect this one is highly subjective. I did say I had some quircks with it, and one of those was, that in some episodes, it was a bit too much fantasy, and too little science for an SF. Also, I like consistency, where Farscape was fairly good at, but sometimes (like with the episode that was actually a cartoon) it needed a bit TOO much scrapping of rational thought. Which is why I have used that example of the tie in BG too. I know, one could say; that doesn't matter at all. In a certain sense, this is true; the story itself could still be entertaining (which it wasn't). But then again, this is intellectual laziness, and it suposes a degree of suspension of disbelief I simply can not muster.
I think you have the same feeling, but directed in another aspect, as I see your complaint about the 'puppets' and characters needing to be 'believable people'. In this respect, I have a lot less difficulty; in SF and fantasy, you always have to part with *some* disbelief, but the main point is, that, once you acept the given surroundings/story, it must be consistent. Thus, I have no trouble a
European countries (well, their governments) are ubelievably hypocritic in this regard. I think it's just because, time after time, they buckle to USA pressure. Not all that long ago, a EU-citizen was extradited to the USA, facing a possible deathsentence (acording to US laws). It is clearly stated, in many national laws, but also as an European law, that NO EU-citizens may be extradited to countruies which implement the death-sentence. Luckily, there are only a hanful of barbaric states left who do such a thing, such as china and N.-Korea, etc. Even fewer countries which claim to be democratic still practise it, such as...the USA.
But, what did they do? The govenments made a deal, where the USA 'promised' they wouldn't actually deal out the capital punishment to that citizen. That was *before* any sentence on guilt or lack thereof was made. Actually, this should anger americans as much, because this means their government arbitrarily decided to NOT treat a person who (alledgely) commited crimes on USA soil according to their own law, and that that EU-person got an illegal advantage which no ordinary US citizen gets.
For me, however, the anger comes at the fact they *did* extradite him to the USA, clearly in violation of the rules and laws of that country and the EU. If the USA wanted him so badly, they could abolish the death penalty. speaking of which, if I'm not mistaken, some more progressive non-bible-belt states in the USA already have forbidden such practises, as any civilised society would do. Or does it ultimately remain a federal decision? Maybe some US slashdotters can fill me in on this.
Well, at least it's more reasonable to asume a different culture will come up with different clothing-habits, than that they will somehow have *exactly* the same non-functional piece of clothing which is only a contemporary statussymbol for managers and the like in western countries on Earth, which even here only started during the 20th century.
;-)
But, hey, you might be right: maybe a tie is a prerequisite, like an universal genetic adaptation as the epithome of evolution, for any living being in the universe aspiring to get up the social ladder!
I'm not completely following you with your "Add to that the fact that covering all of the arable land with PV or wind farms"... I thought I made it clear in my conclusion that we aren't restricted to arable landmass, for many alternative energy-sources? In fact, in the case of windmills, they are far more efficient when they are placed out in the sea. There is really no reason why one have to use arable landmass for that; the coast, sea, along rivers, deserted or mountain-like area's do the job often better.
My long term hope is fusion as well.
I also agree with your statement about self-imposed birth-control (due to education, use of contraceptivs, etc.); it is quite possible this happens. And in fact, I sincerely hope it does, because otherwise, as I have pointed out, NOTHING will help in getting rid of the energy problem if the human worldpopulation keeps expanding at the same rate infinitely.
But, while I hope on a similar mentality-change in regard to other countries following the birth-rate of western countries, it must also be noted that in many european countries the birth-rate has been gone up again for the last decade. (This could be a mere fluke, though).
If they don't feel like reading, why would they read your 'translation'?
Your 'translation' is not a very good one, at that. For instance, if it were about emotion, I wouldn't have praised Farscape because it has an emotional ring to it, neither would I have indicated that startrek, for all the good things it had, was a bit too cerebral. That goes directly against your claim of what I said, in such a flagrant way, that I suspect you either did not read that part, or are wilfully trolling me. I repeat: if I disliked shows which deal with emotion, as you falsely claim, I wouldn't have praised Farscape for exactly that reason.
Furthermore, instead of 'not enough technobabble' (as you claim I used as criterium, though I didn't even imply it once) I based my critique (among many other things) on the fact that many of the episodes of GM and firefly fail to explore the oportunities where SF lends itself for by exellence, and are rather run-of-the-mill soapseries (in content) which are merely happen to be set against an SF-background.
I would understand that you (and others, no doubt) don't agree with my criticism, and, since it's ultimately based on taste (for instance, people may like ordinary-soap-like SF), it is inevitable that this will happen. But at least you should have the intellectual honesty to 'translate' my post correctly.
While I applaud you're appeal for energy-efficiency, as I stated in another post similar to yours: the conclusion just DOES NOT follow the used reasoning. For instance, as long as the worldpopulation continues to have a growing trend, WHATEVER efficient energy-conservation you'll get (unless it's 100%, which is completely impossible for any living entity) you are merely posponing the problem you yourself indicated.
to put it simple, what you are saying is: "n people squander away x amount of energy, and the demand is rising with y% amount every year. If we would reduce the squandering to half the amount and the y% to one tenth, we have a solution for the ever growing demand of energy.
This is, of course, obviously only true if n people remains the same. The greater *efficiency* of machinery and activities, however, can never be a solution if there is an increasing amount of machinery or activities, EVEN if those activities/machinery on themselves are becoming more effcicient and conserve more energy then they used to.
Thus, what your proposal amounts to is that, should people willingly restrict their comfort (e.g. they use less machines or do less activities which consume energy). While that's a noblme thought, I think humans show a poor track record of limiting themselves. You yourself, after all, did not decide to not buy a computer, even though it's yet another machinery that uses electricity - neither did you throw out your TV to remain at an equilibrium; you just ADDED a new piece of technology which added a new amount of electricity-usuage.
But, EVEN if humans would go against their nature and manage to restrict their immer-growing lust for aditional comfort and gadgets, it STILL ouldn't help, as long as the human population keeps expanding. Even at the barest minimal energy-usuage per person, if populationgrowth keeps rising, sooner or later you'll arive at exactly the same point, where there is not enough energy-supply to cover the demand. Good luck with imposing worldwide birthcontrol.
While I think energy-conservation/eficiency is very useful on itself, and can be valuable at posponing a possible energy-crisis, it should be in conjuction with (new) methods of getting a higher enery-production. Just conservation without adding and providing new energy-sources just won't cut it. In fact, the reverse would be more true: as long as you find ways of delivering more energy (for instance, from outer space/sun), you can keep going (though, obviously, an exponential growth is impossible to maintain).
I have no doubt that, as a society, we will continue to need more and more energy (bar a catastrophic period where society as we know it gets destroyed or return to a pre-industrial state). I have no solution in the long run (unless infinite expansion, even into space) to continue to provide our energy, but in the short and midlong term, it will have to be a combination of energy-conservation WITHOUT loss of comfort (e.g. if one has the same computer which uses 500 watt, or 50 watt, people will not mind, and probably chose for the the less-consuming one. Give the choice of a computer of 500 watt and NO computer, people will chose for the 500 watt computer), and new energysources which will have to provide a lot more energy to cope with the demand - which will happen even if per unit things get more energy-efficient.
"The latest trend I saw is directly blaming the "rich", which pretty much includes most of us with computers and the time to argue on slashdot."
;-)
I wasn't aware arguing on slashdot is an indication that one is rich! I rather thought it indicated unemployement or being a geek without a girlfriend!
Now it turns out we're *all* rich elitists, while I used to think I was the only notable exeption in an ocean of pathetic mommies'basement-nerds and lazy bums!
I, for one, welcome my newly discovered fellow capitalist pigs!
While your link was interesting, and your comment (on itself) correct, mind you that the prent poster, as well as the original poster he responed to, talk about 'Using biofuels', not specifically about biofuel made from corn.
While, for arguments' sake, I will accept your numbers about how much energy we will need in the future, you're conclusion doesn't really follow your reasoning.
"That is just not possible and proves that our way of life is NOT sustainable in the long run without drastic reductions in energy use or population"
It is not sustainable when you follow two premises: that biofuel is the only way to go, and that reduction in energy is the only way that could be a solution of sustaining our way of life.
Both are untrue.
First of all, it is highly unlikely that no other energy-sources will be developed then bio-fuel for *all* our energy-requirements. In fact, apart from a replacement for our current petrol (thus, mainly for the use in cars) - which on itself may be temporary untill hydrogen cars are developed, or maybe they will keep a part of the market as far as the diesel is concerned, it can already be seen that the production of energy (electricity, for instance) is not only limited to biofuel.
Now, take your numbers again. What happens to it if you put all other possible alternative sources into it: solarpanels which tranform the suns' rays directly into electricity? Wind enery provided by turbines? Turbines who use the waves of the sea? And maybe in the future even nuclear fusion?
While we don't know how succesful any of those alternatives really will become, it is a fact that we're already exploring them, and that we do NOT rely on biofuel alone. Thus, they are variables in the equation you have not calculated in. I'm not against reducing our energy-footprint, mind you; actually I'm all for making and doing things that cost less energy...but your conclusion just doesn't follow if you accept that there are myriads of other ways in which we could augment our energy-output. It may well be possible that our current lifestyle is sustainable, even without any reductions in energy-use. (Of course, if the population keeps exponentially growing, at some point it becomes unstainable; but note that this is also the case with reduced energy-consumption; an infinite exponential growth just isn't possible toi maintian).
Obviously, we don't need a better then 20% net efficiency for sunlight based on conversion to organic material, if other alternatives aren't based on biofuel. And equally obviously, we have more then the bands of arable landmass to our disposal if energy is (also) derived from sources that do not require arable landmass.
the "(though at least they did made it seem as if you were watching eastenders)" should obviously be: "(though at least they didn't make it seem as if you were watching eastenders)"
As a longstanding SF fan, I have always had difficulties understanding the popularity of Firefly. I've watched countless SF-TVshows and movies, from star trek to starwars, to blakes' seven to battlestar galactica (the old one) to stargate...and frankly, I think starfly was one of the worst SF-TV episodes I have ever seen, with the possible exeption of the new battlestar galactica.
I'm actually wondering if this is some new trend in SF on TV. I mean, for gods' sake; look at the latest BG; half of the time it is about nothing; it's like any other melodramatic soap like there are 13 a dozen of, with a very light sauce of SF poured over it. It's like "friends" or "desperate housewifes" in space. It's full of overacting, the science in the SF is completely wrong; not that that is uncommon, but what's worse, it's wrong in a mundane way. The first time I saw the new BG, I saw a man entering an office having a tedious conversation about complete trivial things (and not even acting good at it); the episode was half over before anything happend that indicated that it was an SF, instead of yet another run-of-the-mill "neighbours" or "the office".
What I remind best is, that once I gathered it was an SF, I thought how unbelievably stupid it was that the man entering was dressed exactly as a contemporary yuppie/businesman of today and he was wearing a *tie*. A tie, for gods' sake! Only a T-shirt with 'nike' on it could have been more ludicrous. They're living thousands of lightyears away, have superiour technology, have not had any contect with earth for thousands of years, and he's wearing a goddamn tie? And every other prop is exactly like what you get at walmart?
The surroundings, the content, the overacting, the whole impression that show makes is that of an amaturistic soap serie which the creators happen to have placed in space, instead of the earth as the next 'the bold and beauty' clone.
Now, firefly is better then that (the overacting is less, for one), but it still isn't great. Contrary to the new BG, I did my best to watch most of the episodes. There is only one or two I thought were really good. The rest... I don't know. again, it's so mundain. The SF seting is just there as background noise, really. For instance, episode after episode, they land on a planet which is...well...just an ordinary setting; I mean, do away with the few scenes where the spaceship lands and launches, and you could as well be watching a western, or a film about farmers who are exploited by their current lord. Most of the time, it's just boring.
The best SF-film ever, was bladerunner; at least there, SF was an integral part of the film. Not because of flashy spaceships or technology shown (though at least they did made it seem as if you were watching eastenders), but because they explored the question of what it meant to be human, when does a machine become human, what ethics could be followed in the future, etc.
Even startrek NG did a far better job at exploring the endless opportunities which new cultures, aliens, viewpoints on world/universe and the place we take in it, futuristic ethical questions, etc. could provide. It may have lacked a bit of an emotional ring to it (it was pretty cerebral most of the times), but all in all, I liked it far more then those newish 'SF'-series. It was clearly an SF, which explored things that were only possible in an SF-seting. They didn't transplant a western or mundain soap opera into an SF-setting just to be able to call it an SF, at least.
As for the best SF-TVshow which *does* have an emotional ring to it, that is without any doubt Farscape. That SF-show is really one of the best I've ever seen, especially when scorpius gets into it. The acting was great, the settings were very awe-inspiring in an alien way - sometimes outright weird, as one should expect when we're in another part of the galaxy, most of the alien characters were unbelievably original, there was a good mix of character-interaction and classic SF-action, coppled with a dose of suspence and my
"Only creationists use phrases like "evolutionism" and "darwinistic evolution."
;-)
Your lying. Seriously. Kenan Malik uses 'evolutionism', and one can hardly claim he's a creationist. As an atheist, it would be rather difficult for me to believe in ID.
Being not native english, I'm not sure what you're getting at; are you implying the terminology is wrong? When I check in an online english dictionary, I see:
evolutionism (v'-l'sh-nz'm, 'v-) Pronunciation Key
n.
1)A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2)Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.
Seems to me to be totally correct, then.
Mind you, if the term 'evolutionism' is more used by (english-speaking) creationists, it would explain why most of the replies I get try to explain things as if I were a child or a retard.
No, I don't understand it in reverse order. Sigh. This is why I'm never keen to ask anything on slashdot for specific knowledge; one is always treated like some retard, even by people with the best of intentions. I mean, I know that a mutation in a white cell will not pass on to any offspring; that was what I said with my example of organs (the heart). And I know evolution is a very slow process.
Anyway, you are just trying to be helpful, I suppose. People seem to be a bit on the wrong track whith what I'm asking (maybe I explained it wrongly). I'm quite aware of how the way evolution works, and the importance of genes, but I would like to know the specifics how a mutation is transferred by a queen, which is only usuable to worker-ants...the point I'm getting at (but which I would like confirmation on), is that all the mutations should be in the genes of the queen, but none of it comes to expression in the phenology of the queen...at least, this is what I think is the case.
I think your last sentence was the most to the point. As I already posted to others: worker ants can be higly specialised; for instance, I've seen ants in the form of (relative) giant sacs which only were useful for storing some sweet excrement other ants gave them. The queen herself, would die with that mutation of the storage-ant (and thus would be unable to pass on any mutations); what is a good adaptation for such a worker-ant, isn't necessarily the case for the queen; if it is passed queen from queen, then how does it get such kind of specialised ants without itself having that mutation? Following my reasoning, all the mutations of all the different workers are in the genes of the queen (and her eggs), but she herself expresses none of the phenology of it. Is that the case, I wonder?
While I admit I didn't read it yet, I'm aware of it's content, and I know there is a lot of critique on it as well. I had a sample of that criticism in the book I'm reading now, which is 'man, beast and zombie'...something I would recommend reading to everyone as well.
Anyway, people seem to be a bit on the wrong track whith what I'm asking (maybe I explained it wrongly). I'm quite aware of how the way evolution works, and the importance of genes, but I would like to know the specifics how a mutation is transferred by a queen, which is only usuable to worker-ants...the point I'm getting at (but which I would like confirmation), is that all the mutations are in the genes of the queen, but none of it comes to expression in the phenology of the queen...at least, this is what I think is the explanation.
Well, simple enough...ermm...that's to say...can you elaborate, using an actual example of how that would actually happen?
For instance, like me example:
"Say the ancestors of the current ants were more simple, less specialised. At a certain moment, in the DNA of a queen-egg, there occurs a mutation; this mutuation turns out to be beneficial - say, the worker-ant develops an enzym which is far more efficient in providing digestable nutrients from raw food, for instance. Now, that ant lives its life, then dies...since workers are unfertile, they don't mate with the queen, and they don't pass on their beneficial mutation."
So, using that example in your explanation, the mutation is...where? In the egg of a parent (normal) queen who in turn develops into a queen? So she now has an enzyme which makes it more efficient for her to digest raw food, only, she doesn't eat raw food, like worker ants...You see, that's where I don't get it: worker ants can be higly specialised, for instance, I've seen ants in the form of (relative) giant sacs which only were useful for storing some sweet excrement other ants gave them. Clearly, a queen having that mutation would die. So how are genes passed, which would be detrimental to the queen, but beneficial to the workers (and the hive as a whole)?
The queen, after all, would die with that mutation of a storage-ant (and thus would be unable to pass on any mutations); what is a good adaptation for such a worker-ant, isn't necessarily the case for the queen; if it is passed queen from queen, as you say, then how does it get such kind of specialised ants without itself having that mutation? Are you implying that all the mutations of all the different workers are in the genes of the queen (and her eggs), but she herself expresses none of the phenology of it?
Since it handles microbes and DNA, it's mildly related:
You know, pondering about evolution, there is only one thing I have difficulty understanding with evolutionism (which I am a strong proponent of). I don't know if you're a biologist or not, but if someone could give me a good explanation I would be glad.
In the case of social groups of insects, like bees and ants, you have different classes/groups of individual insects within one hive, some of which are highly specialised. I can't quite understand how that works, using darwinistic evolution. When one follows the theory of evolutionism with, say, mammals, it makes sense: a genetic change in sperm or egg can lead to an indivdual who is less or more adapted to their environment, and this indivdual passes those traits to his/her offspring.
But, in the case of social insects like ants, you have one queen (and usually one dar) who supplies all the sperm and eggs that the queen uses to create her offspring, resulting in sometimes very specialised ants/bees. But how did that specialisation come about in a heritary sense, when those specialised ants are unfertile, and can't reproduce themselves?
So, how does it work? Say, the queen lays an egg, which has a mutation in it, which evolves into a more specialised ant which is beneficial for the whole hive. Very well. The hive survives better through it. But HOW does that ant give its benefical adaptation/specialisation to any offspring, when it can't reproduce?
One could argue: a hive is like an organ on itself, and a mutation for an improved organ is also present in cells for other organs.
And well, yes, but that's because the DNA for that improved organ has its origin in the spermcel or eggcell (well, the mutation of their DNA, that is), comming from a parent organism. In the case of hive-insects, where the egg of the mutated-and-better-adapted worker-ant comes out, there is no way that infertile worker could be the parent to transmit his mutation throughout any other offspring. Thus, there is no parent - which is different with the analogy of the organs you gave. The right analogy would be, that a sudden mutation hits the organ (say, the heart) itself, and it starts working better (and thus, is beneficial).
But then the same problem arises; it's not possible for the mutation of the heart-organ, beneficial as it might be for the whole organism, to pass the mutation to any offspring, because it's *only a mutation happening in sperm and eggcells* which can provide the mechanism of transmitting a mutuation to any offspring. The mutation of the heart doesn't suddenly transfer, nor does it infuse itself into the DNA of the spermcell.
So, the main problem remains. To give a clear example of what I mean; let's say the ancestors of those ants were more simple, less specialised. At a certain moment, in the DNA of a queen-egg, there occurs a mutation; this mutuation turns out to be beneficial - say, the worker-ant develops an enzym which is far more efficient in providing digestable nutrients from raw food, for instance. Now, that ant lives its life, then dies...since workers are unfertile, they don't mate with the queen, and they don't pass on their beneficial mutation.
So how the heck did those specialised ants come to be, and how do they (the next generation) keep existing in the next hive(s)? Any biologists around who can give a clear explanation of how darwinistic evolution works with hive-insects?
"A mutation for an improved organ is also present in cells for other organs."
Yes, but that's because the DNA for that improved organ has its origin in the spermcel or eggcell (well, the mutation of their DNA, that is), comming from a parent organism. In the case of hive-insects, where the egg of the mutated-and-better-adapted worker-ant comes out, there is no way that infertile worker could be the parent to transmit his mutation throughout any other offspring. Thus, there is no parent - which is different with the analogy of the organs you gave. The right analogy would be, that a sudden mutation hits the organ (say, the heart) itself, and it starts working better (and thus, is beneficial).
But then the same problem arises; it's not possible for the mutation of the heart-organ, beneficial as it might be for the whole organism, to pass the mutation to any offspring, because it's *only a mutation happening in sperm and eggcells* which can provide the mechanism of transmitting a mutuation to any offspring. The mutation of the heart doesn't suddenly transfer, nor does it infuse itself into the DNA of the spermcell.
So, the main problem remains. To give a clear example of what I mean; let's say the ancestors of those ants were more simple, less specialised. At a certain moment, in the DNA of a queen-egg, there occurs a mutation; this mutuation turns out to be beneficial - say, the worker-ant develops an enzym which is far more efficient in providing digestable nutrients from raw food, for instance. Now, that ant lives its life, then dies...since workers are unfertile, they don't mate with the queen, and they don't pass on their beneficial mutation.
So how the heck did those specialised ants come to be, and how do they (the next generation) keep existing in the next hive(s)?