Where you live and work is a choice, and I don't want to have to listen to anyone complain about a situation that is his or her own fault. If you don't like the commute, live closer to work or use alternative forms of transportation. Personally, I choose a long commute to live where I play and commute about 45 min to work, but I made an informed decision (taking into account traffic, my schedule, etc.) before committing myself to both locations. If you can minimize your commute, great; if not, do not complain about the situation you have chosen.
It seems to me that, for the average person, this would play a small part in actually making choices...most incorrect choices tend to be made due to incomplete information, selfishness (including refusing to hear others opinions or accept advice), or denial of what is known or true.
Sure, these neurons may be involved in the process of making judgements, but if the person does not understand or refuses to accept the choice, he is setting himself up for failure before the brain even gets to this step.
I agree with some of the other posters that this discovery may be misused as an excuse for poor choices and behaviors that the individual has an inkling may be incorrect. But, I hope we come to our senses and start taking personal responsibility for our lives, instead of making biological and societal excuses for everything that "goes wrong".
I took classes from a professor studying worms and spiders in the Chernobyl area, and he found remarkable genetic mutations (e.g., changes in the number and size of chromosomes, large sections of additional DNA, etc.) and behavioral changes (e.g., worms switching to from asexual to sexual reproduction).
Since these organisms have such short lifespans, there have been ample generations since the nuclear accident for the organisms to go locally extinct or mutate into different species. But, that has not been the case. These local populations have continued to survive without deleterious effects on the population level.
Populations of organisms with longer lifespans may take longer to recover to pre-blast levels (although from the sound of the article and my previous knowledge the opposite has occurred) and may experience a genetic bottleneck effect (which may be countered by mutations), but genomes are resiliant and it is unlikely that the populations would never recover.
And I can tell you that not only was electricity cheaper (roughly half of what I pay now two hours away), but the plant was extremely well-guarded. In addition to the actual plant design (I witnessed a test jet crash into a half-size model that didn't even crack the walls), security is strict on the ground, in thr air, and on the water. It took two badges and two forms of id to get into the place. Our worst problem was dealing with sea lions that decided our cooling tubes were the place to catch fish.
Notice his dissent is not having to do with the occurrence of higher global temperatures (or at least temperature changes in general), but with the interpretation of such changes. Very few debates regarding global warming are about the scientific data, but rather the interpretation: will there be more or less extreme weather? are humans the cause of the change? have we changed the system outside its natural range of variability? how will temperature change affect species diversity?
I think the author has a valid point that alternative interpretations of the causes and effects of global climate change need to be addressed and taken into account when forming policy. Climate change models are imperfect and fallable, and even if most current models agree, they are based on similar assumptions that may greatly influence their outcome, so alternative models and views need to be considered.
What is your evidence that life is completely deterministic atlarge scales? If you've figured that out, you've solved problems for a lot of scientists, philosophers, and theologists.
Most large-scale patterns and processes in nature are stochastic and the outcome is one of a distribution of possibilities, similarly to quantum mechanics. In general, the same pattern can result from diverse processes (e.g., banded patterns of vegetation from dispersal dependence or topographical variation), while a single process may give rise to many different patterns (e.g., fire disturbances may result in even-aged forests or mixed-age forests).
How much are we really learning from ground-based telescopes as opposed to satellite telescopes at this time? For real scientists (not your backyard user looking at the stars), will this really affect their current and future research?
I don't think so. There is already a push for satellite telescopes, so this development may speed up the transition, but will not be the sole incentive.
Although there is evidence of an asteroid impact around the time (meaning within a few million years in geologic terms) of the dinosaur extinction, there is no strong evidence linking these events. The extinction has also been related to volcanic activity, climate changes, supernova radiation, fireball explosions, or meteors.
Apparently, creating an impression of impending doom sells more online publications (?), or at least produces public support for expensive research.
According to the article, the number of Bachelor's of Science degrees has increased greatly, which means we have a lot more techs, not scientists as the article is claiming. Although there has been an increase in graduate degrees, the author does say the majority of them came from foreign countries, with a modest increase in U.S. enrollment since the 1990s.
As everyone has already pointed out, we don't need more techs; we outsource those. So realistically, we are facing a surplus of "scientists" with tech-level skills and a deficit of scientists able to carry out intensive research.
Although this is similar to punctuated equilibria, it is not appear to be identical. In punctuated equilibria, there are periods of statis with little evolution of new species, interspersed with periods of rapid speciation in many species. This theory seems to apply more to single species, in which the number of individuals with a recessive mutation reach some sort of critical mass, at which time the recessive trait manifests itself and speciation occurs.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence that global climate change is occurring.
However, do we really need to do anything about it? The earth is somewhat self-regulating, and a rise in temperature (and CO2 and whatever else) will eventually be counteracted without human intervention. In all likelihood, anything we did choose to do would disrupt the natural atmospheric regulation mechanisms because we do not completely understand global climate processes and their inter-relations.
Slashdot Mirror
Where you live and work is a choice, and I don't want to have to listen to anyone complain about a situation that is his or her own fault. If you don't like the commute, live closer to work or use alternative forms of transportation. Personally, I choose a long commute to live where I play and commute about 45 min to work, but I made an informed decision (taking into account traffic, my schedule, etc.) before committing myself to both locations. If you can minimize your commute, great; if not, do not complain about the situation you have chosen.
It seems to me that, for the average person, this would play a small part in actually making choices...most incorrect choices tend to be made due to incomplete information, selfishness (including refusing to hear others opinions or accept advice), or denial of what is known or true.
Sure, these neurons may be involved in the process of making judgements, but if the person does not understand or refuses to accept the choice, he is setting himself up for failure before the brain even gets to this step.
I agree with some of the other posters that this discovery may be misused as an excuse for poor choices and behaviors that the individual has an inkling may be incorrect. But, I hope we come to our senses and start taking personal responsibility for our lives, instead of making biological and societal excuses for everything that "goes wrong".
I took classes from a professor studying worms and spiders in the Chernobyl area, and he found remarkable genetic mutations (e.g., changes in the number and size of chromosomes, large sections of additional DNA, etc.) and behavioral changes (e.g., worms switching to from asexual to sexual reproduction).
Since these organisms have such short lifespans, there have been ample generations since the nuclear accident for the organisms to go locally extinct or mutate into different species. But, that has not been the case. These local populations have continued to survive without deleterious effects on the population level.
Populations of organisms with longer lifespans may take longer to recover to pre-blast levels (although from the sound of the article and my previous knowledge the opposite has occurred) and may experience a genetic bottleneck effect (which may be countered by mutations), but genomes are resiliant and it is unlikely that the populations would never recover.
And I can tell you that not only was electricity cheaper (roughly half of what I pay now two hours away), but the plant was extremely well-guarded. In addition to the actual plant design (I witnessed a test jet crash into a half-size model that didn't even crack the walls), security is strict on the ground, in thr air, and on the water. It took two badges and two forms of id to get into the place. Our worst problem was dealing with sea lions that decided our cooling tubes were the place to catch fish.
Notice his dissent is not having to do with the occurrence of higher global temperatures (or at least temperature changes in general), but with the interpretation of such changes. Very few debates regarding global warming are about the scientific data, but rather the interpretation: will there be more or less extreme weather? are humans the cause of the change? have we changed the system outside its natural range of variability? how will temperature change affect species diversity?
I think the author has a valid point that alternative interpretations of the causes and effects of global climate change need to be addressed and taken into account when forming policy. Climate change models are imperfect and fallable, and even if most current models agree, they are based on similar assumptions that may greatly influence their outcome, so alternative models and views need to be considered.
What is your evidence that life is completely deterministic atlarge scales? If you've figured that out, you've solved problems for a lot of scientists, philosophers, and theologists.
Most large-scale patterns and processes in nature are stochastic and the outcome is one of a distribution of possibilities, similarly to quantum mechanics. In general, the same pattern can result from diverse processes (e.g., banded patterns of vegetation from dispersal dependence or topographical variation), while a single process may give rise to many different patterns (e.g., fire disturbances may result in even-aged forests or mixed-age forests).
How much are we really learning from ground-based telescopes as opposed to satellite telescopes at this time? For real scientists (not your backyard user looking at the stars), will this really affect their current and future research?
I don't think so. There is already a push for satellite telescopes, so this development may speed up the transition, but will not be the sole incentive.
Why did the author(s) have to bring up dinosaurs?
Although there is evidence of an asteroid impact around the time (meaning within a few million years in geologic terms) of the dinosaur extinction, there is no strong evidence linking these events. The extinction has also been related to volcanic activity, climate changes, supernova radiation, fireball explosions, or meteors.
Apparently, creating an impression of impending doom sells more online publications (?), or at least produces public support for expensive research.
According to the article, the number of Bachelor's of Science degrees has increased greatly, which means we have a lot more techs, not scientists as the article is claiming. Although there has been an increase in graduate degrees, the author does say the majority of them came from foreign countries, with a modest increase in U.S. enrollment since the 1990s.
As everyone has already pointed out, we don't need more techs; we outsource those. So realistically, we are facing a surplus of "scientists" with tech-level skills and a deficit of scientists able to carry out intensive research.
Although this is similar to punctuated equilibria, it is not appear to be identical. In punctuated equilibria, there are periods of statis with little evolution of new species, interspersed with periods of rapid speciation in many species. This theory seems to apply more to single species, in which the number of individuals with a recessive mutation reach some sort of critical mass, at which time the recessive trait manifests itself and speciation occurs.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence that global climate change is occurring. However, do we really need to do anything about it? The earth is somewhat self-regulating, and a rise in temperature (and CO2 and whatever else) will eventually be counteracted without human intervention. In all likelihood, anything we did choose to do would disrupt the natural atmospheric regulation mechanisms because we do not completely understand global climate processes and their inter-relations.