"Fortunately for him..." It's not just him that benefits -- everyone benefits when political and social ideas can be discussed openly without hysteria.
To put it simply, maybe the "reactionaries" have nothing against GM in principle, but are reacting against it because of outcomes (eg. toxic foods, genetic pollution, etc) that are inevitable given our current state of economic and political corruption.
Maybe these "reactionaries" aren't as ill-informed as you think. Maybe at least some of them are aware that in an ideal world, with ethical and moral corporations performing proper testing on products prior to release (and with unbiased, independent regulatory bodies ensuring proper standards are met), there would be little to fear in GM foods. Maybe they aren't that naive...
Nah, I'm sure they're just a bunch of ignorant, tree-hugging hippies.
Great post. While individualism _is_ a Western thing, freedom is not -- all people want to be free.
"There is no reason to think they will not continue and eventually enjoy the freedom and prosperity that so many others have achieved." The main thing that worries me is that technological advances will aid governments' suppression of their people, and prevent this.
I think we (in the West) have about a 200-to-300-year tradition that the government must operate within the law. In fact, it was the government that first argued against the divine right of Kings, and I don't see why anything has changed.
Please don't go round trying to convince people that the government _is_ the law - this was a hard-won battle!
The government can certainly afford good lawyers tho..
No - the GP is saying that the reduction in morbidity and mortality that we enjoy is largely due to animal research. There are still many diseases that we don't understand and can't treat, so further research will help us further improve quality of life for sick people. If we cease research, then we won't get those benefits (or they will be significantly delayed, likely by decades and possibly by centuries).
I think people _do_ condone (albeit tacitly) the mistreatment of agricultural animals, and I think it's because of the "yuck" factor of some science research. I suspect that an average dairy cow probably lives a worse life than your average lab rat (I've worked on dairy farms, and know how appallingly they're treated).
Having said all this, there are difficult philosophical issues with animal research. For example, what's our basis of saying that it's ok to do research on animals so that people can live better? Is it because we're smarter? If so, is it therefore ok for us to do similar research on stupid or mentally retarded people? (remember that there are primate research labs, some of which use chimps - I think that is ethically very dicey). I hate animal-rights activists - as a group they're a bunch of ignorant Luddites - there have been cases where they've dynamited animal research labs that were doing population studies of wild animals! But I do think that some scientists are a bit nonchalant when it comes to animal research.
For what it's worth, I'm vegetarian for ethical and environmental reasons, but I do believe there is a place for scientific animal research/testing at this point in time.
I remember arguing with someone about this a few years ago, and advocating essentially the position you've just outlined.
I've been thinking since though. One thing that comes with (almost) all religions is the idea of holiness. Christ was holy - if you believe then you're holy too. When 'bad' people believe that they're holy and on the side of God, they do terrible things -- no matter what their religion. I think this is _the_ bad thing about religion: the messianic delusion of grandeur it imparts to its followers. Of course, it's possible for atheists to have this too, but I think it's easier for religious people to fall into this trap because so many religious teachings and axioms support it.
You're totally right. I watched a US-made doco about the solar system a while back and was shocked at the over-dramatisation that was used. While the content was (in general) good it had lines like "it's a massive ball of fire, shooting high speed particles at the Earth", etc. In most episodes was a reference to how the subject-matter could destroy life on Earth. The other amazing thing was the rate of video cuts - there was about 1 scene cut per second. It was really distracting, and gave the show an almost hysterical air. I also hated the narrator - sounded like his usual job was voicing movie trailers.
I think it was "the universe" from the history channel.
"Don't think 2008, think 1929 - a REAL depression."
I'd be comparing it more to 1300 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age), but probably substantially worse. Btw - I don't live in North America, but think such an eruption would affect the whole world, massively.
"Last time Yellowstone blew, it didn't cause a Permian-scale extinction event"
The last time Yellowstone blew, there was no species using agriculture to support dense populations. Imagine that the supermarket shelves were empty for 6 months (which isn't very long), and food and fuel distribution broke down. That would probably be enough to introduce anarchy into most countries.
Well, it sure is good to know that not "all the large land animals" will necessarily be killed off. I think it's a good bet that such an eruption would mean at least the end of human civilisation (if not human extinction).
But no, the Earth would still keep orbiting the sun, if that comforts you;-)
Yes, I agree. If only there was a wealthy and powerful opposition to the global DMCA to fund such a thing (like probably occurred with the global warming docs).
That's just what the marketeers are trying to persuade the 'facebook-generation' - I'm sure that generation's kids will value privacy, what with all the horror stories their parents tell them.
"So sorry, your Honour, I didn't realise eMule was pointing at my Music collection - it was an honest mistake that I realised and repaired as soon as RIAA sent me a letter"
How do you think that'd wash?
ps. I'm not saying Palm should be crucified, just wondering why there's one standard for GPL licenses, and another for 'proper' copyright licences...
Slashdot Mirror
"Fortunately for him..."
It's not just him that benefits -- everyone benefits when political and social ideas can be discussed openly without hysteria.
"more", or "some"? :-P
hmm... maybe that's the reason that priests must be celibate also...
To put it simply, maybe the "reactionaries" have nothing against GM in principle, but are reacting against it because of outcomes (eg. toxic foods, genetic pollution, etc) that are inevitable given our current state of economic and political corruption.
Maybe these "reactionaries" aren't as ill-informed as you think. Maybe at least some of them are aware that in an ideal world, with ethical and moral corporations performing proper testing on products prior to release (and with unbiased, independent regulatory bodies ensuring proper standards are met), there would be little to fear in GM foods. Maybe they aren't that naive...
Nah, I'm sure they're just a bunch of ignorant, tree-hugging hippies.
Great post. While individualism _is_ a Western thing, freedom is not -- all people want to be free.
"There is no reason to think they will not continue and eventually enjoy the freedom and prosperity that so many others have achieved."
The main thing that worries me is that technological advances will aid governments' suppression of their people, and prevent this.
I think we (in the West) have about a 200-to-300-year tradition that the government must operate within the law. In fact, it was the government that first argued against the divine right of Kings, and I don't see why anything has changed.
Please don't go round trying to convince people that the government _is_ the law - this was a hard-won battle!
The government can certainly afford good lawyers tho..
No - the GP is saying that the reduction in morbidity and mortality that we enjoy is largely due to animal research. There are still many diseases that we don't understand and can't treat, so further research will help us further improve quality of life for sick people. If we cease research, then we won't get those benefits (or they will be significantly delayed, likely by decades and possibly by centuries).
I think people _do_ condone (albeit tacitly) the mistreatment of agricultural animals, and I think it's because of the "yuck" factor of some science research. I suspect that an average dairy cow probably lives a worse life than your average lab rat (I've worked on dairy farms, and know how appallingly they're treated).
Having said all this, there are difficult philosophical issues with animal research. For example, what's our basis of saying that it's ok to do research on animals so that people can live better? Is it because we're smarter? If so, is it therefore ok for us to do similar research on stupid or mentally retarded people? (remember that there are primate research labs, some of which use chimps - I think that is ethically very dicey).
I hate animal-rights activists - as a group they're a bunch of ignorant Luddites - there have been cases where they've dynamited animal research labs that were doing population studies of wild animals! But I do think that some scientists are a bit nonchalant when it comes to animal research.
For what it's worth, I'm vegetarian for ethical and environmental reasons, but I do believe there is a place for scientific animal research/testing at this point in time.
I remember arguing with someone about this a few years ago, and advocating essentially the position you've just outlined.
I've been thinking since though. One thing that comes with (almost) all religions is the idea of holiness. Christ was holy - if you believe then you're holy too. When 'bad' people believe that they're holy and on the side of God, they do terrible things -- no matter what their religion. I think this is _the_ bad thing about religion: the messianic delusion of grandeur it imparts to its followers.
Of course, it's possible for atheists to have this too, but I think it's easier for religious people to fall into this trap because so many religious teachings and axioms support it.
"What this world needs is a good secular church"
Do you mean like Engineers without borders? (http://www.ewb-international.org/)
Or one of the many similar organisations?
You're totally right. I watched a US-made doco about the solar system a while back and was shocked at the over-dramatisation that was used. While the content was (in general) good it had lines like "it's a massive ball of fire, shooting high speed particles at the Earth", etc. In most episodes was a reference to how the subject-matter could destroy life on Earth. The other amazing thing was the rate of video cuts - there was about 1 scene cut per second. It was really distracting, and gave the show an almost hysterical air. I also hated the narrator - sounded like his usual job was voicing movie trailers.
I think it was "the universe" from the history channel.
It's not viral, it's inherited. The decendents of GPL code are GPL.
"Finished is better than perfect"
Damn good saying, that.
People who criticise others for splitting infinitives are often pretentious wankers.
One more thing ;-)
"Don't think 2008, think 1929 - a REAL depression."
I'd be comparing it more to 1300 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age), but probably substantially worse. Btw - I don't live in North America, but think such an eruption would affect the whole world, massively.
"Last time Yellowstone blew, it didn't cause a Permian-scale extinction event"
The last time Yellowstone blew, there was no species using agriculture to support dense populations. Imagine that the supermarket shelves were empty for 6 months (which isn't very long), and food and fuel distribution broke down. That would probably be enough to introduce anarchy into most countries.
Exactly - pure capitalism is just like democracy, except that the strength of your vote is dependent on the size of your wallet.
Well, it sure is good to know that not "all the large land animals" will necessarily be killed off. I think it's a good bet that such an eruption would mean at least the end of human civilisation (if not human extinction).
But no, the Earth would still keep orbiting the sun, if that comforts you ;-)
Yes, I agree. If only there was a wealthy and powerful opposition to the global DMCA to fund such a thing (like probably occurred with the global warming docs).
I would say that the Nouveau project is evidence that there are some users who would trade some convenience for freedom.
That's just what the marketeers are trying to persuade the 'facebook-generation' - I'm sure that generation's kids will value privacy, what with all the horror stories their parents tell them.
and he's backing them by scattering live streaming webcams throughout his house that anyone can connect to. Oh wait, he's not? Oh...
In other words:
"In evidence for conventional wisdom I present you... ...conventional wisdom!!!"
(ps. I realise you're joking - it's really very funny ;-))
"So sorry, your Honour, I didn't realise eMule was pointing at my Music collection - it was an honest mistake that I realised and repaired as soon as RIAA sent me a letter"
How do you think that'd wash?
ps. I'm not saying Palm should be crucified, just wondering why there's one standard for GPL licenses, and another for 'proper' copyright licences...
"Another difference between Google and your ISP is that your ISP knows who you are from your IP address. "
If you're logged into your Google account, then Google knows who you are as well.