In other words, nothing will satisfy those who seek to blame everything either on Global Warming or America.
Wrong. Just reduce both per-capita energy usage (easy, the runners-up are only slightly behind) and overall energy usage (how hard can it be to beat 1.1 billion Chinese ?), and then start yelling really loud and pointing fingers. Maybe a small invasion would be in order, too.
Oh, I don't know. I think I understand it pretty well. The sun does it.
No, no, no. The atmosphere does it. See the temperature difference between Mercury and Venus. To get rid of hurricanes once and for all, we must strip this planet of any significant atmosphere.
Unfortunately socialist governments are a recent invention, and they're quickly undoing what natural selection used to take place in the wild. With massive welfare systems now in place in many countries, the dumbest people can now breed out of control, and you're paying for it.
That was already possible in the Roman empire. And I wouldn't call 2000 years "recent". "Panem et circenses", what's that if not welfare ?
have difficulty finding any source of death or reproduction that is meaningfully affected, today, in our human world, by genes.
There are plenty of genetic diseases, and a whole bunch of diseases you are more likely to get with the right (or wrong) set of genes. Various types of cancer, for example.
To sustain a population for each person a child needs to be born. it takes 2 to make kids, so 2 kids per woman will suffice.
2 kids per female is a sure way to extinction, since the ratio between males and females at birth is 501 : 499.
Also, it has to be ensured that every femal born reaches adulthood and also has 2 kids. (Which cannot be ensured, period). Therefore, the average number of children per female must exceed 2.0.
I'm not sure how you would have 2.1 kids anyway, but its probably because i'm one of those stupid people.
It has more to do with knowing the meaning of "average".
Can one seriously argue that lactose tolerance (or intolerance) increases survival of humans in areas that produce (or don't produce) bovine milk?
Maybe the gene now no longer serves its intended function (which is why it can get replaced with its "faulty" version that allows adult mammals to tolerate lactose).
Having the gene in the first place makes perfect sense to anyone who know a bit about mammalian reproduction physiology. Nursing inhibits ovulation in the female. Forcing the offspring to stop nursing allows for more reproductive cycles. Developing lactose intolerance in early life is a pretty sure way to accomplish that.
Thererefore: Yes, one can perfectly well argue that the lactose intolerance gene makes sense. All that's required is some basic physiology. Just because you can't argue doesn't mean anyone else can't.
We obviously differ on the definition of "natural".
Maybe. In the context of "selection", to me that's anything not caused by FSMs, IPUs or similar entities. Evolution does not really care about the origin of the selection, though, just that the selection exists.
But the fact remains, in that case that individual is able to pass along his/her traits of severe diabetes which is not a desirable trait to carry. 'Cause should that particular "tool" (insulin) become unavailable for even a short amount of time... Darwin gets ya and your offspring should they carry the same trait. And that, in my opinion is a "weakness" of that individual, genetically speaking.
That is one of the problems with evolution - it has a long memory, but close to zero foresight.
And while dependence on certain substances or tools might look undesirable, look at how many of those dependencies humans already have: a certain range of gravity, pressure, oxygen, a certain temperature range, suitable food, etc. Darwin will get ya if you suddenly take any of those away, too. Happened to the dinosaurs.
1) Exactly what human tools have been around since "that long ago" that help you sticking (or receiving) a penis in the vagina?
The tools that allow individuals to actually get that far along the way of reproduction.
Fire. Helps to avoid freezing off important parts during cold winter nights. Also helps to keep your offspring from freezing solid during those nights, and helps to keeps the tigers away that want to snack on you, your partner and your offspring.
Clothing. See above. Can also help to influence potential mating partner's preference towards the wearer.
Jewelry/other adornments. See latter point of clothing.
Weapons. See the part about tigers above. Also help to impress potential partners, keep rivals away and provide food to you, your partner and your offspring.
Blankets. Ever tried to have sex outside during the cold season without one ?
Houses. Better version of blankets for that purpose.
Reducing "fitness" to the short time from intercourse to conception is quite shortsighted (to the point of blindness). Whoever can reproduce and ensure the survival of the offspring is "fit". Regardless of the tools used in the process. If someone can't do this even with currently available tools, well, in that case they should come up with better tool or they'll end up "unfit".
My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology - medical or otherwise (KY is, of course excluded).
In that case, your definition of "fitness" is obsolete. In fact, it has been obsolete since humanity started using tools. Had your definition of fitness not become obsolete that long ago, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion on the internet.
I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors.
No, it has not. First of all, evolution is _slow_ compared to human lifetimes. How can you tell that a process has completely stopped that has time constants in the thousands of years ?
Also, these factors did not stop evolution at all. They merely modified the criteria used in the selection process. A very common fallacy of "critics" of evolution is that the criteria for selection stay the same. If this were the case, well, where are the dinosaurs ? They were wiped off the planet by a change in the selection criteria which they suddenly did not fulfill anymore... whoops.
In the early 19th century, the US Gov't upheld peoples property rights. So if someone polluted onto your property you could sue them and had a high chance of winning.
I doubt that anyone really worried about pollution between 1800 and 1850. Especially in the US.
Also, what about pollution that isn't onto your property, but in the air that you breathe or the water of the oceans ? What about pollution that cannot be tracked back to one single source that you can actually sue ?
Mining the moon for anything other than helium-3 is also a complete waste of time; there's nothing there that's not available in abundant quantities back on Earth,
... sitting in a big fat 1g gravity well.
The thing about mining the moon is that everything you mine there can be sent into space with much, much less energy expenditure than sending it from Earth. And as soon as you start looking at building larger structures in space, sending stuff up from earth is becoming less and less economical.
I think the budget for Hubble was somethink around $US 1 billion,
How much is that figure expressed in units of "days of war in Iraq" ?
And since the main problem with surface telescopes( athmosphere's refraction)
What about atmospheric absorption of certain wavelengths, earth's rotation during long exposure times, light pollution, dust/scattering in the atmosphere, etc ?
What if Katrina had grown no bigger than a tropical storm. What if Bush had then funded those levees in NOLA, cut funding for the war in Iraq, and Iraq degenerated into civil war because the US had inadequate troop presence? I suppose you'd think that would've squarely been Bush's fault too?
Of course not. It would be squarely the fault of whoever invaded Iraq to search for those elusive stockpiles of WMD...... hey, wait a minute...
For example, when speaking of American gun deaths,...
In that case, speaking of murders involving firearms (or better yet, just murders in general) will give you the less biased number.
And unsurprisingly, the result of the comparison will be about the same.
First, you would have to convince the US that they are still living in the stone age of Diesel technology - you know, engines that are dirty, weak, inconvenient kludges.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Just reduce both per-capita energy usage (easy, the runners-up are only slightly behind) and overall energy usage (how hard can it be to beat 1.1 billion Chinese ?), and then start yelling really loud and pointing fingers. Maybe a small invasion would be in order, too.
No, no, no. The atmosphere does it. See the temperature difference between Mercury and Venus. To get rid of hurricanes once and for all, we must strip this planet of any significant atmosphere.
That was already possible in the Roman empire. And I wouldn't call 2000 years "recent". "Panem et circenses", what's that if not welfare ?
There are plenty of genetic diseases, and a whole bunch of diseases you are more likely to get with the right (or wrong) set of genes. Various types of cancer, for example.
NEWS FLASH: Humans are not the only mammals on the planet. Some mammals are actually _born_ with their permanent teeth.
Also, not everyone's a biter.
The gene also causes lactose intolerance for the rest of the life, preventing the individual to reacquire a habit of consuming milk
2 kids per female is a sure way to extinction, since the ratio between males and females at birth is 501 : 499.
Also, it has to be ensured that every femal born reaches adulthood and also has 2 kids. (Which cannot be ensured, period). Therefore, the average number of children per female must exceed 2.0.
I'm not sure how you would have 2.1 kids anyway, but its probably because i'm one of those stupid people.
It has more to do with knowing the meaning of "average".
Maybe the gene now no longer serves its intended function (which is why it can get replaced with its "faulty" version that allows adult mammals to tolerate lactose).
Having the gene in the first place makes perfect sense to anyone who know a bit about mammalian reproduction physiology. Nursing inhibits ovulation in the female. Forcing the offspring to stop nursing allows for more reproductive cycles. Developing lactose intolerance in early life is a pretty sure way to accomplish that.
Thererefore: Yes, one can perfectly well argue that the lactose intolerance gene makes sense. All that's required is some basic physiology. Just because you can't argue doesn't mean anyone else can't.
Maybe. In the context of "selection", to me that's anything not caused by FSMs, IPUs or similar entities. Evolution does not really care about the origin of the selection, though, just that the selection exists.
But the fact remains, in that case that individual is able to pass along his/her traits of severe diabetes which is not a desirable trait to carry. 'Cause should that particular "tool" (insulin) become unavailable for even a short amount of time... Darwin gets ya and your offspring should they carry the same trait. And that, in my opinion is a "weakness" of that individual, genetically speaking.
That is one of the problems with evolution - it has a long memory, but close to zero foresight.
And while dependence on certain substances or tools might look undesirable, look at how many of those dependencies humans already have: a certain range of gravity, pressure, oxygen, a certain temperature range, suitable food, etc. Darwin will get ya if you suddenly take any of those away, too. Happened to the dinosaurs.
No, no, no, that's why we have 300hp cars, guns, extreme sports, incomprehensible technical gizmos, electricity, drugs, etc
They all help to keep the lethality of stupidity at an acceptable level.
The tools that allow individuals to actually get that far along the way of reproduction.
Fire. Helps to avoid freezing off important parts during cold winter nights. Also helps to keep your offspring from freezing solid during those nights, and helps to keeps the tigers away that want to snack on you, your partner and your offspring.
Clothing. See above. Can also help to influence potential mating partner's preference towards the wearer.
Jewelry/other adornments. See latter point of clothing.
Weapons. See the part about tigers above. Also help to impress potential partners, keep rivals away and provide food to you, your partner and your offspring.
Blankets. Ever tried to have sex outside during the cold season without one ?
Houses. Better version of blankets for that purpose.
Reducing "fitness" to the short time from intercourse to conception is quite shortsighted (to the point of blindness). Whoever can reproduce and ensure the survival of the offspring is "fit". Regardless of the tools used in the process. If someone can't do this even with currently available tools, well, in that case they should come up with better tool or they'll end up "unfit".
It is equally presumptuous to say that there are no genetic factors whatsoever influencing intelligence.
In that case, your definition of "fitness" is obsolete. In fact, it has been obsolete since humanity started using tools. Had your definition of fitness not become obsolete that long ago, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion on the internet.
I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors.
No, it has not. First of all, evolution is _slow_ compared to human lifetimes. How can you tell that a process has completely stopped that has time constants in the thousands of years ?
Also, these factors did not stop evolution at all. They merely modified the criteria used in the selection process. A very common fallacy of "critics" of evolution is that the criteria for selection stay the same. If this were the case, well, where are the dinosaurs ? They were wiped off the planet by a change in the selection criteria which they suddenly did not fulfill anymore
I doubt that anyone really worried about pollution between 1800 and 1850. Especially in the US. Also, what about pollution that isn't onto your property, but in the air that you breathe or the water of the oceans ? What about pollution that cannot be tracked back to one single source that you can actually sue ?
That depends on how far they get before dying.
Private, non-profit _organization_. "Company" implies "for profit".
And still money left to throw a really big party when the astronauts come back. But all of that isn't anywhere near the top of the priorities list.
One of the two main waste products of burning gasoline is ... water vapor. And compared to the other waste product, it is pretty much a non-issue.
.. but only if you use friggin' laser beams.
However, any way to solve the storage issues associated with hydrogen should be welcomed. I'd want a fuel-cell powered car rather sooner than later.
How much is that figure expressed in units of "days of war in Iraq" ? And since the main problem with surface telescopes( athmosphere's refraction)
What about atmospheric absorption of certain wavelengths, earth's rotation during long exposure times, light pollution, dust/scattering in the atmosphere, etc ?
Of course not. It would be squarely the fault of whoever invaded Iraq to search for those elusive stockpiles of WMD
It slowed down from cat 5 to cat 4.
In that case, speaking of murders involving firearms (or better yet, just murders in general) will give you the less biased number. And unsurprisingly, the result of the comparison will be about the same.
First, you would have to convince the US that they are still living in the stone age of Diesel technology - you know, engines that are dirty, weak, inconvenient kludges.