Trump - miamizsun - Apr 25, 2018 - 9:07am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 25, 2018 - 9:06am
 
::it's a dress thing:: - lily34 - Apr 25, 2018 - 8:28am
 
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage? - rhahl - Apr 25, 2018 - 8:24am
 
Music Lessons - rhahl - Apr 25, 2018 - 8:19am
 
Private messages in a public forum - helenofjoy - Apr 25, 2018 - 8:14am
 
Things You Thought Today - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 25, 2018 - 8:10am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - ebcdic - Apr 25, 2018 - 8:00am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 25, 2018 - 7:38am
 
Prog Rockers Anonymous - rhahl - Apr 25, 2018 - 7:12am
 
Tech & Science - miamizsun - Apr 25, 2018 - 6:24am
 
New Music - meower - Apr 25, 2018 - 5:29am
 
Heroes - sirdroseph - Apr 25, 2018 - 4:06am
 
Anti-War - miamizsun - Apr 25, 2018 - 4:05am
 
The war on funk is over! - miamizsun - Apr 25, 2018 - 3:57am
 
Live Music - R_P - Apr 24, 2018 - 10:58pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oppositelock - Apr 24, 2018 - 9:15pm
 
Unusual News - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 24, 2018 - 8:43pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - fractalv - Apr 24, 2018 - 8:21pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - Red_Dragon - Apr 24, 2018 - 7:52pm
 
OUR CATS!! - haresfur - Apr 24, 2018 - 6:00pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Apr 24, 2018 - 4:33pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - katzendogs - Apr 24, 2018 - 4:00pm
 
Favorite Quotes - Proclivities - Apr 24, 2018 - 1:35pm
 
Two sexes or ? Gender as a non-binary concept - meower - Apr 24, 2018 - 11:49am
 
Race in America - meower - Apr 24, 2018 - 11:43am
 
songs that ROCK! - ptooey - Apr 24, 2018 - 10:37am
 
The Image Post - kctomato - Apr 24, 2018 - 9:51am
 
Jazz - rhahl - Apr 24, 2018 - 8:12am
 
North Korea - black321 - Apr 24, 2018 - 6:20am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - maryte - Apr 24, 2018 - 5:55am
 
Error: Could not retrieve offline list - alvaro - Apr 24, 2018 - 5:21am
 
FLAC Roll Out - marco79cgn - Apr 24, 2018 - 4:16am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Apr 23, 2018 - 8:49pm
 
TV shows you watch - FourFortyEight - Apr 23, 2018 - 8:21pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - FourFortyEight - Apr 23, 2018 - 7:53pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - ptooey - Apr 23, 2018 - 5:17pm
 
Permanently twinkling eyes - haresfur - Apr 23, 2018 - 3:44pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - haresfur - Apr 23, 2018 - 3:31pm
 
Freedom of speech? - Steely_D - Apr 23, 2018 - 3:16pm
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - lily34 - Apr 23, 2018 - 11:17am
 
Humane mouse trap? - miamizsun - Apr 23, 2018 - 5:40am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Apr 22, 2018 - 9:29pm
 
What's Your Dream Job? - haresfur - Apr 22, 2018 - 6:33pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - helenofjoy - Apr 22, 2018 - 2:23pm
 
NETFLIX - Alexandra - Apr 22, 2018 - 1:39pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - sirdroseph - Apr 22, 2018 - 12:06pm
 
What Makes You Sad? - oldviolin - Apr 22, 2018 - 10:48am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Apr 22, 2018 - 10:43am
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Apr 22, 2018 - 9:22am
 
Celebrity Deaths - islander - Apr 22, 2018 - 7:42am
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Apr 22, 2018 - 6:53am
 
Outstanding Covers - rhahl - Apr 22, 2018 - 5:10am
 
The Prince topic - Steely_D - Apr 22, 2018 - 12:00am
 
Syria - R_P - Apr 21, 2018 - 10:54pm
 
Beer - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 21, 2018 - 9:54pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - sirdroseph - Apr 21, 2018 - 9:10pm
 
Military Matters - R_P - Apr 21, 2018 - 8:27pm
 
Show Us Your Tats! - Red_Dragon - Apr 21, 2018 - 6:39pm
 
Republican Party - R_P - Apr 21, 2018 - 6:10pm
 
Electronic Music - R_P - Apr 21, 2018 - 5:52pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - SeriousLee - Apr 21, 2018 - 5:34pm
 
RP Oasis...the bar is open. - chagas.carla - Apr 21, 2018 - 2:01pm
 
Back to the 10's - rhahl - Apr 21, 2018 - 8:25am
 
RPeep News You Should Know - islander - Apr 21, 2018 - 8:06am
 
RP App for Android - Tominthevan - Apr 21, 2018 - 7:42am
 
New storage Cache feature - BillG - Apr 21, 2018 - 6:55am
 
Guns - Lazy8 - Apr 20, 2018 - 8:41pm
 
Is the system down? - haresfur - Apr 20, 2018 - 6:36pm
 
Protest Songs - rhahl - Apr 20, 2018 - 4:20pm
 
Movie Quote - SeriousLee - Apr 20, 2018 - 3:14pm
 
Flower Pictures - Antigone - Apr 20, 2018 - 3:05pm
 
Democratic Party - Lazy8 - Apr 20, 2018 - 2:42pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Steely_D - Apr 20, 2018 - 1:41pm
 
Dancing Bananas !!! - Prodigal_SOB - Apr 20, 2018 - 9:59am
 
Index » Internet/Computer » The Web » Tech & Science Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 184, 185, 186  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 25, 2018 - 6:24am

like 

Five new malaria targets that could lead to an effective vaccine

Scientists have identified five targets that reduce the parasite’s ability to invade red blood cells

In the largest study of its kind, five new malaria vaccine targets have been discovered by scientists at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and their collaborators. Researchers studied the malaria parasite at its most vulnerable stage – when invading human red blood cells – and identified five targets that lead to a reduction in the parasite’s ability to enter red blood cells.

Nearly half of the world’s population is at risk of malaria and more than 200 million people are infected each year. The disease caused the deaths of almost half a million people globally in 2015*.




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 25, 2018 - 6:15am

very creative! (a tattoo)

An artificial mole as an early warning sign

18.04.2018 | News

By:  Peter Rüegg  |  1  Comment

ETH researchers working with Martin Fussenegger have developed an early warning system for the four most common types of cancer. Should a tumour develop, a visible mole will appear on the skin.


As soon as the calcium level exceeds a particular threshold over a longer period of time, an implant inserted under the skin triggers the production of melanin. This causes a mole to form. (Re-enacted montage: ETH Zurich)

Alongside cardiovascular disease, cancer has become the top cause of death in industrialised countries. Many of those affected are diagnosed only after the tumour has developed extensively. This often reduces the chance of recovery significantly: the cure rate for prostate cancer is 32 percent and only 11 percent for colon cancer. The ability to detect such tumours reliably and early would not only save lives, but also reduce the need for expensive, stressful treatment.




Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 24, 2018 - 11:22pm

aflanigan wrote:
The back and forth you and NoEnz have had popped into my mind when I saw the story of the judge who decided that a macaque monkey could not legally assert a copyright to photos he had taken.

Walking home yesterday and seeing a number of front yards being actively guarded by male robins, it seemed to me that these creatures do recognize/assert property (territory) rights, can distinguish between "self" and "other", and mostly abide by established rules (i.e. negotiated understanding of where my "territory" ends and where "other's" territory begins). They're certainly sentient to some degree.

Perhaps the real determinant of mutual assertion and honoring of rights is based more on species; the fat robin that has claimed our entire back yard (yep, he's a big boy) doesn't seem to mind me hanging out there because I'm not "other" to him, not a member of his species. The statement by Taney in Dred Scott that the black man "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" was, I'd suggest, undergirded by the implicit assumption that they were not biologically the same (different race) as white Europeans (it kind of had to be, given the "all men are created equal" language found in the Declaration of Independence).

While the modern concept of the species was just emerging if was recognized even then that races were somewhat arbitrary differences between humans. This debate is not new. James Madison was particularly eloquent in Federalist 54:

we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.

The only way to live with that contradiction was to ignore it, which of course eventually became impossible. On day we may have to face that with another species.
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Apr 24, 2018 - 8:52am

 Lazy8 wrote:
As for the first point...read it again? I'm insisting that reciprocity is a necessary condition for the concept of rights. That's equivalent to the axiom of everyone has the same rights. And yes, that's fundamental to the concept of rights; every thinker who acknowledges that there are such things uses that as a starting point.

Sentience is a necessary condition to recognizing that, for instance, there is such a thing as self and other—pretty basic to functioning with others. Would an agreement to abide by rules have any meaning without sentience?

While recognizing that the comatose, children, and insane have rights we also recognize that they have limited sentience and thus limited ability to exercise those rights. We have various social structures in place for others to make decisions for them—parents, legal guardians, and in some cases the state). Even if they can't, say, enter into contracts it's immoral to kill them or harvest organs without previous consent. We also don't hold them as responsible for their actions even if those actions violate the rights of others.

Or we're supposed to anyway; in the states there is an alarming tendency to charge children in serious crimes as adults and punish them as such. Failure to be philosophically consistent isn't a refutation of the philosophy.

And I think we have the kernel of an agreement here. More and more our willingness to kill, eat, and otherwise mess with other species is dependent on their perceived sentience. We already find cruelty to animals (even non-sentient ones) abhorrent, but domestic turkeys (just to bring up a delicious delicious example) are only slightly more intelligent than pineapples. While there isn't rigor there I suspect there could be.

As for David Brin...I still haven't liked anything he's done better than the original novella that expanded into The Postman—an exploration into what it means to be civilized. But what keeps me reading him is his eagerness to explore ideas like the concept of "uplift"—genetically modifying other species to sentience. He's written at least 6 books with that as a theme.

Fun trivia—he was a physics postdoc at my alma mater while I was there, and published his first novel while I was a starving undergrad. I had no idea we overlapped there until years later, even as I was reading his fiction. Would have made an effort to meet him had I known.

 
The back and forth you and NoEnz have had popped into my mind when I saw the story of the judge who decided that a macaque monkey could not legally assert a copyright to photos he had taken.

Walking home yesterday and seeing a number of front yards being actively guarded by male robins, it seemed to me that these creatures do recognize/assert property (territory) rights, can distinguish between "self" and "other", and mostly abide by established rules (i.e. negotiated understanding of where my "territory" ends and where "other's" territory begins). They're certainly sentient to some degree.

Perhaps the real determinant of mutual assertion and honoring of rights is based more on species; the fat robin that has claimed our entire back yard (yep, he's a big boy) doesn't seem to mind me hanging out there because I'm not "other" to him, not a member of his species. The statement by Taney in Dred Scott that the black man "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" was, I'd suggest, undergirded by the implicit assumption that they were not biologically the same (different race) as white Europeans (it kind of had to be, given the "all men are created equal" language found in the Declaration of Independence).


R_P
Oînk, oînk, OÎNK!
R_P Avatar



Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 4:53pm

US soldier gets world's first penis and scrotum transplant
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 12:25pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
(snip)

Fun trivia—he was a physics postdoc at my alma mater while I was there, and published his first novel while I was a starving undergrad. I had no idea we overlapped there until years later, even as I was reading his fiction. Would have made an effort to meet him had I known.

 
Of all sad words of keyboard or pen, the saddest are these - it might have been.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 11:55am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
ok, you've confused me. How and where did you assert the opposite?
"I don't expect my cats to respect my privacy. My dogs have only minimal understanding of the concept of property—mainly limited to if it fits in my mouth it's mine. So no, I won't extend the concept of rights to other species until they can reciprocate." 

And exchanging the word human for the word sentient doesn't make it any better. What is so special about sentient? Do people in a coma have no rights? Where is the parity there?

And you gotta love the delicious irony in your attempt to remove yourself from a God-given right to domination only to replace it with an equally fictitious source (natural rights) to raze and plunder anything that is not sentient. 

Though I am quite happy to read some David Brin. So thanks for that.  

Finally, that rights only exist in a social context is the whole point. We have the ability to choose. So why not? The population of Southern Right Whales is mightily happy we did.

As for the first point...read it again? I'm insisting that reciprocity is a necessary condition for the concept of rights. That's equivalent to the axiom of everyone has the same rights. And yes, that's fundamental to the concept of rights; every thinker who acknowledges that there are such things uses that as a starting point.

Sentience is a necessary condition to recognizing that, for instance, there is such a thing as self and other—pretty basic to functioning with others. Would an agreement to abide by rules have any meaning without sentience?

While recognizing that the comatose, children, and insane have rights we also recognize that they have limited sentience and thus limited ability to exercise those rights. We have various social structures in place for others to make decisions for them—parents, legal guardians, and in some cases the state). Even if they can't, say, enter into contracts it's immoral to kill them or harvest organs without previous consent. We also don't hold them as responsible for their actions even if those actions violate the rights of others.

Or we're supposed to anyway; in the states there is an alarming tendency to charge children in serious crimes as adults and punish them as such. Failure to be philosophically consistent isn't a refutation of the philosophy.

And I think we have the kernel of an agreement here. More and more our willingness to kill, eat, and otherwise mess with other species is dependent on their perceived sentience. We already find cruelty to animals (even non-sentient ones) abhorrent, but domestic turkeys (just to bring up a delicious delicious example) are only slightly more intelligent than pineapples. While there isn't rigor there I suspect there could be.

As for David Brin...I still haven't liked anything he's done better than the original novella that expanded into The Postman—an exploration into what it means to be civilized. But what keeps me reading him is his eagerness to explore ideas like the concept of "uplift"—genetically modifying other species to sentience. He's written at least 6 books with that as a theme.

Fun trivia—he was a physics postdoc at my alma mater while I was there, and published his first novel while I was a starving undergrad. I had no idea we overlapped there until years later, even as I was reading his fiction. Would have made an effort to meet him had I known.
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 10:48am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
You are on thin ice here. The ability to reciprocate can't possibly be a foundation for rights, as you yourself would be the first to admit. But I do like the idea of a parrot I could talk to.

And the charge of human exceptionalism applies much better to you than me, simply by asserting rights for us and none for other living creatures. Really? Isn't this straight out of Genesis?

No, our technology has given us great power. Moreover, we have the ability to control and apply that power. Don't the basic tenets of liability law apply here? We have a duty of care. We have the ability to exercise care. If we breach that duty of care we should be held liable. Pure and simple. Neither of these two premises applies to lions (of which there as damn few left, btw). That doesn't mean they don't have any rights.

I just asserted the very opposite. You've made a testable assertion ("can't possibly") and I just provided a counterexample (I, um, did)—ask your parrot.

Genesis claimed not just exceptionalism but dominion—the right to rule, and the authority came from a deity. So no, not straight outa Genesis. And I claim exceptionalism not for a species but for sentience. That parrot, say.

The best explorations I know of into the ethics of genetic manipulation vis-a-vis sentience are in the realm of fiction, specifically science fiction. Check out some David Brin*—good reads even if the philosophizing doesn't interest you.

*Yes, I know Heinlein was there first, but I'd worry NoEnz's head would explode.

 
ok, you've confused me. How and where did you assert the opposite?
"I don't expect my cats to respect my privacy. My dogs have only minimal understanding of the concept of property—mainly limited to if it fits in my mouth it's mine. So no, I won't extend the concept of rights to other species until they can reciprocate." 

And exchanging the word human for the word sentient doesn't make it any better. What is so special about sentient? Do people in a coma have no rights? Where is the parity there?

And you gotta love the delicious irony in your attempt to remove yourself from a God-given right to domination only to replace it with an equally fictitious source (natural rights) to raze and plunder anything that is not sentient. 

Though I am quite happy to read some David Brin. So thanks for that.  

Finally, that rights only exist in a social context is the whole point. We have the ability to choose. So why not? The population of Southern Right Whales is mightily happy we did.
rhahl
If it sounds good, it is good.
rhahl Avatar



Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 9:22am

 miamizsun wrote:

New microscope captures 3-D movies of cells inside living organisms in unprecedented detail

 
I sent this video to a friend who manufactures a low cost ($50k) 3D microscope in Hawaii, asking how this new one works. His answer:
 

"This is a huge breakthrough to be able to see this kind of live 3D in vivo in a living organism.

"Lot's of new questions can be asked. Very Exciting! By the way, this is a multi million dollar instrument.

"They have combined lightsheet microscopy with adaptive optics (AO) (which is a technique that was partially developed here in Maui at the Institute for Astronomy, where I have my microscope lab). I was working with one of the leaders of AO to incorporate it into the Edge microscope system when he was suddenly struck with lung cancer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_sheet_fluorescence_microscopy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics

"Lightsheet microscopy illuminates only the plane of the specimen that is in focus. The microscope precisely focuses at different levels to produce a stack of images, much like the Edge microscope produces a stack of images. Then they sharpen the image using AO, which eliminates the distortions in the wave-front that are caused by the light traveling through the parts of the specimen that is not at the focal plane. It is achieved the same way the distortions in the atmosphere are eliminated using AO on telescopes. It uses a wave-front detector and a deformable mirror. The wave-front detector shapes the deformable mirror to restore the original wave-front.

Cool stuff.

Cheers, Gary

Gary Greenberg, PhD

greenberg@edge-3d.com

www.Edge-3D.com

PO Box 792169

Paia, HI 96779

808 344 5954




Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 9:11am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
You are on thin ice here. The ability to reciprocate can't possibly be a foundation for rights, as you yourself would be the first to admit. But I do like the idea of a parrot I could talk to.

And the charge of human exceptionalism applies much better to you than me, simply by asserting rights for us and none for other living creatures. Really? Isn't this straight out of Genesis?

No, our technology has given us great power. Moreover, we have the ability to control and apply that power. Don't the basic tenets of liability law apply here? We have a duty of care. We have the ability to exercise care. If we breach that duty of care we should be held liable. Pure and simple. Neither of these two premises applies to lions (of which there as damn few left, btw). That doesn't mean they don't have any rights.

I just asserted the very opposite. You've made a testable assertion ("can't possibly") and I just provided a counterexample (I, um, did)—ask your parrot.

Genesis claimed not just exceptionalism but dominion—the right to rule, and the authority came from a deity. So no, not straight outa Genesis. And I claim exceptionalism not for a species but for sentience. That parrot, say.

The best explorations I know of into the ethics of genetic manipulation vis-a-vis sentience are in the realm of fiction, specifically science fiction. Check out some David Brin*—good reads even if the philosophizing doesn't interest you.

*Yes, I know Heinlein was there first, but I'd worry NoEnz's head would explode.
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 11:25pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

Our bodies kill living organisms (parasites, pathogenic microbes) in uncountable numbers every day. They can't help it—it's part of being a body. You willing to extend the concept of rights to, say, influenza viruses?

If we impose that rule on ourselves (and I see no reason to regard a whale or a lion any differently in that regard from say, a chicken) then do we then impose that rule on lions?

Why not? If killing another animal is so bad we should never do it why should we allow it to happen, even at the deepest depths of the sea?

What about whales, then? Do krill count?

You're making an artificial distinction by putting man outside of nature. We eat other organisms and are in turn eaten when the time comes.

The concept of rights is (as you half-correctly point out) a human construct. An ethical law, not a physical law. It has no effect outside of a social environment—they impose duties on people with respect to others. We make a distinction between humans and animals in that we expect parity with humans: I recognize and respect your rights, you recognize and respect mine. You violate my rights and I am justified in responding in kind.

I don't expect my cats to respect my privacy. My dogs have only minimal understanding of the concept of property—mainly limited to if it fits in my mouth it's mine. So no, I won't extend the concept of rights to other species until they can reciprocate.

And if you want to start genetically engineering parrots or cuttlefish capable of respecting the rights of others (which, I want to emphasize, I would be completely fine with) then I'd be delighted to extend the concept to them.

 
You are on thin ice here. The ability to reciprocate can't possibly be a foundation for rights, as you yourself would be the first to admit. But I do like the idea of a parrot I could talk to.

And the charge of human exceptionalism applies much better to you than me, simply by asserting rights for us and none for other living creatures. Really? Isn't this straight out of Genesis?

No, our technology has given us great power. Moreover, we have the ability to control and apply that power. Don't the basic tenets of liability law apply here? We have a duty of care. We have the ability to exercise care. If we breach that duty of care we should be held liable. Pure and simple. Neither of these two premises applies to lions (of which there as damn few left, btw). That doesn't mean they don't have any rights.


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 9:43am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
ok, so you are against unilateral, dictatorial decisions and favour no regulation at all, or if absolutely necessary, then only democratically chosen ones... this is another road we have been down more than once.. 

so how about I use your own arguments against you.. earlier you stated "the rights had always existed, they just weren't exercisable until the forces of technological and social change toppled the old order." 

Well now that we have the forces of technological and social change working in their favour, why don't we extend these natural rights to all living organisms?  Wouldn't killing whales and hunting lions then be a transgression of their rights that we could conceivably pursue ?  

Does that work for you? 

Our bodies kill living organisms (parasites, pathogenic microbes) in uncountable numbers every day. They can't help it—it's part of being a body. You willing to extend the concept of rights to, say, influenza viruses?

If we impose that rule on ourselves (and I see no reason to regard a whale or a lion any differently in that regard from say, a chicken) then do we then impose that rule on lions?

Why not? If killing another animal is so bad we should never do it why should we allow it to happen, even at the deepest depths of the sea?

What about whales, then? Do krill count?

You're making an artificial distinction by putting man outside of nature. We eat other organisms and are in turn eaten when the time comes.

The concept of rights is (as you half-correctly point out) a human construct. An ethical law, not a physical law. It has no effect outside of a social environment—they impose duties on people with respect to others. We make a distinction between humans and animals in that we expect parity with humans: I recognize and respect your rights, you recognize and respect mine. You violate my rights and I am justified in responding in kind.

I don't expect my cats to respect my privacy. My dogs have only minimal understanding of the concept of property—mainly limited to if it fits in my mouth it's mine. So no, I won't extend the concept of rights to other species until they can reciprocate.

And if you want to start genetically engineering parrots or cuttlefish capable of respecting the rights of others (which, I want to emphasize, I would be completely fine with) then I'd be delighted to extend the concept to them.
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 8:51am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
1) It's not about being pro- or anti-technology per se, it's about who makes the decisions about which technologies' net impacts are positive or negative. You want those decisions centralized, I want them (to the maximum extent possible) distributed.

2) Neener neener.

3) You can have your utopian vision...for yourself. It isn't necessarily anyone else's utopian vision. I'm fine with you pursuing yours so long as you grant your neighbors the freedom to make similar decisions about their own lives.

Tedious disclaimer: no, that doesn't mean rejecting collective action, it means rejecting coercive action. Convince, don't coerce. And no, convincing a bare majority to coerce the rest doesn't count.

 
neener  

ok, so you are against unilateral, dictatorial decisions and favour no regulation at all, or if absolutely necessary, then only democratically chosen ones... this is another road we have been down more than once.. 

so how about I use your own arguments against you.. earlier you stated "the rights had always existed, they just weren't exercisable until the forces of technological and social change toppled the old order." 

Well now that we have the forces of technological and social change working in their favour, why don't we extend these natural rights to all living organisms?  Wouldn't killing whales and hunting lions then be a transgression of their rights that we could conceivably pursue ?  

Does that work for you? 


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 8:11am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Before I get pigeonholed in a place I don't want to be:

1) I am not anti-technology in the slightest. At least I have never met a luddite who gets as excited about stellarators as me, or even one who would prefer to replace coal with 2-gen nuclear. 

2) Of the two of us, you are the more religious. I don't believe in God, intelligent design, or even, as you do, "universal human rights" as some intangible good existing out there in the aether, which is just a modern version of religious woo-woo. Same as it ever was. A social fiction necessary for us to function in a large group. Works wonderfully, but so did religion for many years. Nothing more, nothing less, but I don't want to open that discussion yet again. Far too well trodden.

3) If I have a utopian vision, it is that of a high-tech society ring-fenced as much as possible from the natural environment. The wilds should be left untouched as much as we can possibly achieve. We have the technology to live very comfortably with the resources already at our disposal. We must stop this rape and pillage of the natural environment and let it recover from the devastation we have already wrought upon it.  (my credo). Your life in Montana already seems to be a close approximation of this. You use minimal resources (an internet connection) to work for a company miles away, but are surrounded by pristine (well almost) nature. Sounds like heaven. I want in.

So why am I concerned about genetic engineering and bionics? Well, there is a lot about it, that I am not concerned about. I think it could bring us huge benefits. But I think it has to be managed. And I think we should be careful not to unleash an environmental shock on an already stressed environment. This is simply good husbandry. I would be happy if we could grow the bulk of our food in factories and remove industrial scale agriculture from the environment. I would be happy if we got our energy from clean renewable sources that did not necessitate ripping up the land and denuding it. We do not need to save the environment, we just have to leave it alone. Sure you can have your own garden and veggie-plot. Nothing wrong with that. 

As an example of where I stand: I have read articles about using Crispr to make mosquitoes deformed or infertile to stop the spread of malaria. I have also read an article about using Crispr technology, not to kill off the mosquitoes but to prevent them carrying the malaria parasite. Guess which approach I favour? The first I find ridiculous, the second sounds really promising.

1) It's not about being pro- or anti-technology per se, it's about who makes the decisions about which technologies' net impacts are positive or negative. You want those decisions centralized, I want them (to the maximum extent possible) distributed.

2) Neener neener.

3) You can have your utopian vision...for yourself. It isn't necessarily anyone else's utopian vision. I'm fine with you pursuing yours so long as you grant your neighbors the freedom to make similar decisions about their own lives.

Tedious disclaimer: no, that doesn't mean rejecting collective action, it means rejecting coercive action. Convince, don't coerce. And no, convincing a bare majority to coerce the rest doesn't count.
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 3:02am

 Lazy8 wrote:
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Sure.. but modern technology is, well, modern. We simply have not had these capabilities ever before. Sure, my concerns sound like those of a luddite. But your optimism sounds like that of a trek-head, champing at the bit to enter into an exciting new world. The one real fiction in all those sci-fi movies is that the worlds they postulate are peopled by characters (humanoids, androids, aliens) that we can relate to. The one certain thing is that a future world is very unlikely to be peopled by such characters, but more likely by robo-vacuum cleaners.

All technology was once new and unprecedented. Think of the railroad: for the first time in human history an ordinary person could reasonably expect to visit a faraway place...and return. And do it over and over. A hundred mile trip used to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, and something available almost exclusively to men. And not just because of social norms—the practicalities of daily life and the hardships of travel tied women to the home.

Unprecedented. Revolutionary.

Liberating.

Point 2: if there is one thing that history teaches us, is that the value of a human life in society is tied to their economic worth. Your much vaunted human rights only arose contemporaneously with the fall of feudalism, the industrial revolution and the consuming classes. I see no reason in a future world why that should continue.

A slight correction: the rights had always existed, they just weren't exercisable until the forces of technological and social change toppled the old order. But if you're so eager to free yourself from all that freedom I invite you to take up the yoke. North Korea beckons.

Or you could take up religion; I've heard of several openings.

Point 3: We can actively choose not to pursue certain technologies and have done so in the future. past. The argument that someone else is going to do it, so we may as well do it first, is weak.

It's not a moral argument, it's a pragmatic one. I care that the people who live near me and speak the same language have as good a set of opportunities as people far away. The stem cell therapies that show so much promise are emerging in China. They could have emerged here, and would probably develop faster.

And I'm typing this from a sheep ranch in Montana. This May I celebrate the eleventh anniversary of my last daily commute to work. I haven't retired—I work from home, telecommuting to an office over a thousand miles away. So day to day I do the work of the modern age but I live pretty much the same way my grandfathers did, except I get to watch MotoGP races every other Sunday or so—all made possible by this marvelous new (well, relatively new—I sent my first email in 1989) technology. The one with the unpredictable outcomes. The one we're using to argue about the social aspects of technology.

This is my choice. I live without many of the modern conveniences because I don't want them. That isn't what you're trying to put on the table; your tinfoil hat would cover everyone in the reach of the law, whether they agree or not. That "we" in the above covers people you have no right to decide for.

  

Before I get pigeonholed in a place I don't want to be:

1) I am not anti-technology in the slightest. At least I have never met a luddite who gets as excited about stellarators as me, or even one who would prefer to replace coal with 2-gen nuclear. 

2) Of the two of us, you are the more religious. I don't believe in God, intelligent design, or even, as you do, "universal human rights" as some intangible good existing out there in the aether, which is just a modern version of religious woo-woo. Same as it ever was. A social fiction necessary for us to function in a large group. Works wonderfully, but so did religion for many years. Nothing more, nothing less, but I don't want to open that discussion yet again. Far too well trodden.

3) If I have a utopian vision, it is that of a high-tech society ring-fenced as much as possible from the natural environment. The wilds should be left untouched as much as we can possibly achieve. We have the technology to live very comfortably with the resources already at our disposal. We must stop this rape and pillage of the natural environment and let it recover from the devastation we have already wrought upon it.  (my credo). Your life in Montana already seems to be a close approximation of this. You use minimal resources (an internet connection) to work for a company miles away, but are surrounded by pristine (well almost) nature. Sounds like heaven. I want in.

So why am I concerned about genetic engineering and bionics? Well, there is a lot about it, that I am not concerned about. I think it could bring us huge benefits. But I think it has to be managed. And I think we should be careful not to unleash an environmental shock on an already stressed environment. This is simply good husbandry. I would be happy if we could grow the bulk of our food in factories and remove industrial scale agriculture from the environment. I would be happy if we got our energy from clean renewable sources that did not necessitate ripping up the land and denuding it. We do not need to save the environment, we just have to leave it alone. Sure you can have your own garden and veggie-plot. Nothing wrong with that. 

As an example of where I stand: I have read articles about using Crispr to make mosquitoes deformed or infertile to stop the spread of malaria. I have also read an article about using Crispr technology, not to kill off the mosquitoes but to prevent them carrying the malaria parasite. Guess which approach I favour? The first I find ridiculous, the second sounds really promising.


spammer
What would Edmund Burke do?
spammer Avatar

Location: Bokey's Basement(he doesn't feed us)


Posted: Apr 20, 2018 - 9:36am

 miamizsun wrote:
inner space?

To Boldly Go

New microscope captures 3-D movies of cells inside living organisms in unprecedented detail



More than 350 years ago, the English natural philosopher Robert Hooke peered through a microscope at a thin slice of cork and discovered that it was made of small box-like compartments, which he named “cells.”

From that moment on, Hooke and countless inquisitive minds after him strived to gain a better view of these fundamental building blocks of life.

Now, our window into the cellular world has become a lot clearer.



 

I just got my second MRI a few months ago.This technology has gotten so advanced,the physicians don't have the time to learn how to utilize it.I've seen neurosurgeons,chiropractors and LPNs struggle to come up with the info necessary to evaluate the patient.In today's tight,insurance driven 15 minute windows,the technology can actually lower the quality of treatment IMO.
  I am fortunate in that my treatment isn't driven by a company counting beans,but I've seen how this has evolved during my caretaking days.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 20, 2018 - 9:23am

inner space?

To Boldly Go

New microscope captures 3-D movies of cells inside living organisms in unprecedented detail






More than 350 years ago, the English natural philosopher Robert Hooke peered through a microscope at a thin slice of cork and discovered that it was made of small box-like compartments, which he named “cells.”

From that moment on, Hooke and countless inquisitive minds after him strived to gain a better view of these fundamental building blocks of life.

Now, our window into the cellular world has become a lot clearer.


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 20, 2018 - 8:39am

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Sure.. but modern technology is, well, modern. We simply have not had these capabilities ever before. Sure, my concerns sound like those of a luddite. But your optimism sounds like that of a trek-head, champing at the bit to enter into an exciting new world. The one real fiction in all those sci-fi movies is that the worlds they postulate are peopled by characters (humanoids, androids, aliens) that we can relate to. The one certain thing is that a future world is very unlikely to be peopled by such characters, but more likely by robo-vacuum cleaners.

All technology was once new and unprecedented. Think of the railroad: for the first time in human history an ordinary person could reasonably expect to visit a faraway place...and return. And do it over and over. A hundred mile trip used to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, and something available almost exclusively to men. And not just because of social norms—the practicalities of daily life and the hardships of travel tied women to the home.

Unprecedented. Revolutionary.

Liberating.

Point 2: if there is one thing that history teaches us, is that the value of a human life in society is tied to their economic worth. Your much vaunted human rights only arose contemporaneously with the fall of feudalism, the industrial revolution and the consuming classes. I see no reason in a future world why that should continue.

A slight correction: the rights had always existed, they just weren't exercisable until the forces of technological and social change toppled the old order. But if you're so eager to free yourself from all that freedom I invite you to take up the yoke. North Korea beckons.

Or you could take up religion; I've heard of several openings.

Point 3: We can actively choose not to pursue certain technologies and have done so in the future. past. The argument that someone else is going to do it, so we may as well do it first, is weak.

It's not a moral argument, it's a pragmatic one. I care that the people who live near me and speak the same language have as good a set of opportunities as people far away. The stem cell therapies that show so much promise are emerging in China. They could have emerged here, and would probably develop faster.

And I'm typing this from a sheep ranch in Montana. This May I celebrate the eleventh anniversary of my last daily commute to work. I haven't retired—I work from home, telecommuting to an office over a thousand miles away. So day to day I do the work of the modern age but I live pretty much the same way my grandfathers did, except I get to watch MotoGP races every other Sunday or so—all made possible by this marvelous new (well, relatively new—I sent my first email in 1989) technology. The one with the unpredictable outcomes. The one we're using to argue about the social aspects of technology.

This is my choice. I live without many of the modern conveniences because I don't want them. That isn't what you're trying to put on the table; your tinfoil hat would cover everyone in the reach of the law, whether they agree or not. That "we" in the above covers people you have no right to decide for.


NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Apr 20, 2018 - 8:04am

 Lazy8 wrote:

If anybody could predict the future it would have already been done. Successfully, I mean.

Because nothing you're talking about is new. Every advance we've made has generated predictions of a future populated by either mindless automatons either doing what they're told or heroic but flawed humans ruled by their heartless technological overlords. All I have to guide me then is...the whole of human history. Dystopia never seems to get here. Cower in fear of the future if you like, I want to see it all.

Every time we think we're on the brink of being in complete control of our world we discover that it's more complex than we knew and control remains out of reach. The endless debate over free will and determinism, for instance, that we have even now bores me. I mean if all that hand-wringing keeps you from blowing up research labs then by golly keep at it, but it's not like solving the problems we face today (imposed on us by a random, uncaring universe) we leave us bereft of problems to solve or make the universe care we were ever here.

 
Sure.. but modern technology is, well, modern. We simply have not had these capabilities ever before. Sure, my concerns sound like those of a luddite. But your optimism sounds like that of a trek-head, champing at the bit to enter into an exciting new world. The one real fiction in all those sci-fi movies is that the worlds they postulate are peopled by characters (humanoids, androids, aliens) that we can relate to. The one certain thing is that a future world is very unlikely to be peopled by such characters, but more likely by robo-vacuum cleaners.

Point 2: if there is one thing that history teaches us, is that the value of a human life in society is tied to their economic worth. Your much vaunted human rights only arose contemporaneously with the fall of feudalism, the industrial revolution and the consuming classes. I see no reason in a future world why that should continue.

Point 3: We can actively choose not to pursue certain technologies and have done so in the future. past. The argument that someone else is going to do it, so we may as well do it first, is weak.  


NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Apr 20, 2018 - 8:04am

 Lazy8 wrote:

If anybody could predict the future it would have already been done. Successfully, I mean.

Because nothing you're talking about is new. Every advance we've made has generated predictions of a future populated by either mindless automatons either doing what they're told or heroic but flawed humans ruled by their heartless technological overlords. All I have to guide me then is...the whole of human history. Dystopia never seems to get here. Cower in fear of the future if you like, I want to see it all.

Every time we think we're on the brink of being in complete control of our world we discover that it's more complex than we knew and control remains out of reach. The endless debate over free will and determinism, for instance, that we have even now bores me. I mean if all that hand-wringing keeps you from blowing up research labs then by golly keep at it, but it's not like solving the problems we face today (imposed on us by a random, uncaring universe) we leave us bereft of problems to solve or make the universe care we were ever here.

 
Sure.. but modern technology is, well, modern. We simply have not had these capabilities ever before. Sure, my concerns sound like those of a luddite. But your optimism sounds like that of a trek-head, champing at the bit to enter into an exciting new world. The one real fiction in all those sci-fi movies is that the worlds they postulate are peopled by characters (humanoids, androids, aliens) that we can relate to. The one certain thing is that a future world is very unlikely to be peopled by such characters, but more likely by robo-vacuum cleaners.

Point 2: if there is one thing that history teaches us, is that the value of a human life in society is tied to their economic worth. Your much vaunted human rights only arose contemporaneously with the fall of feudalism, the industrial revolution and the consuming classes. I see no reason in a future world why that should continue.

Point 3: We can actively choose not to pursue certain technologies and have done so in the future. The argument that someone else is going to do it, so we may as well do it first, is weak.  
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 184, 185, 186  Next