dusqi

(apologies for blatant advertisement, but at least I didn't start this thread!) For F1 fans on Facebook, you might want to check out the FantasyTeam F1 app I co-founded: http://apps.facebook.com/dream_racing_team/ You pick a team of 4 drivers, 2 constructors, and your bonus track - and then attempt to get more points than others based on how your team does in the F1 season. Only 10 hours before qualifying though, so get cracking if you want to set up a team! We can set up a tip.it league too if people are interested. See who's the most knowledgeable here!

Yeah, seriously, and I'm only 23. Someone here said they were only 4 in 1999, and I was thinking "wth? you're only about 8 years old now". But then I worked out they were 13 or something, which isn't ridiculously young. For me, anyone born later than 1989 is still a noob. Beyond this, the 90s were nothing special. Most people think they didn't have a care in the world at age 6 or whatever, but actually 6 year olds have just as many "problems" - it's just that they worry about things that we don't, like where they lost their crayon or something, and why their mum drags them shopping for "hours and hours" (10 mins).

It's stupid to ask people what they'd do, because the whole point is that in the real experiment you don't know that it's a fake. Similiarly, in the Stanford Prison Experiment where people were randomly set up as guards or prisoners in a mock prison, and the guards ended up making the prisoners do bad things, people who know about it will say that they'd never ever do that because they're so moral, blah blah. Same thing with adverts - everyone says that they never pay attention to adverts and have never bought anything just because they've seen it advertised, but adverts obviously work and people do buy things because of them (perhaps without realising it). People think that the Nazi people must have somehow been different because they did terrible things to Jews, mostly because they don't like to admit that if they had been in the same situation they probably would have done the same thing. The same applies to soldiers more recently in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, who tortured prisoners and took pictures. The statistical fact is that you're probably more animalistic, less caring about other people, and more manipulable than you think. I think that at least if you start out with this assumption in mind, accepting that you are being manipulated all the time, you're more likely to pay attention to the worst situations where this occurs or may occur in future.

Is it creepy then I used to read yours and tanya's :oops: Well, when you were in the chat room, we often talked :P and you had a blog too if I remember correctly - so I don't think it was creepy at all.

I should clarify that I just have a livejournal about stuff I do, for online friends and my own gratification. Also because I use it to keep up with other online friends that have them. I am not interesting enough for random people to read about my life. Concerning public blogs, I read two Facebook developer blogs (since I am one), and also a blog by an academic about life as a female science professor, which I recommend to anyone considering academia (or for some reason interested in the politics of being an academic): http://science-professor.blogspot.com/ Edit: I completely approve of the LSE podcasts. Universities are giving access to a lot of materials that are very interesting, especially if you are someone that enjoys hearing things rather than reading books (or just want some variety). They're also great to listen to while travelling. Last summer I listened to a series about the history of physics from a university in California which was very interesting.

Ditto that. Strong scent makes me cough.

Yes, Facebook is public - it's the same as putting up a poster on a notice board saying that you hate your work and then signing your name on it. I do not have a problem integrating social networking and work. Partly because I'm not someone who goes out getting drunk or taking drugs, so I don't have some kind of secret home life that I need to hide. I also don't expect that a social network is a private conversation between friends, so I only post things that I would like an acquaintance of me to know. It's a cross between an advertising board for me as a brand, and a way of keeping up with what other people I know are doing. As an example, I am a student landlord and each year I get new tenants to live with me. Apart from getting a recommendation from the previous tenants, the new potential tenants can (and do) also look at my Facebook profile to see that I have friends and am a normal person... Also, I think that work should be enjoyable, so it makes me sad when I hear of people who want to just get home and pretend that what they did between 9am and 5pm never happened. Don't wish your life away watching the clock :thumbdown:

It's always the mystical "they" that have to think of something, and then when "they" do people complain about how it was obvious all along and "they" shouldn't have been paid to do it. (This is coming from a psychology researcher whose subject is often accused of telling people things that they already know. Building up tolerance for things by starting small is something that psychology has been doing for decades as a way of coping with phobias.)

I find the responses in this thread interesting. Why do some people see the image and feel relaxed, because they feel that their cares are insignificant - whereas other people see the image and feel depressed, because they feel that they are insignificant? More on topic, this reminds me of the fact that we're made up of atoms that were all fused in the centre of stars (again, I find this knowledge beautiful, but I imagine that other people will have a negative take on it... probably something to do with star waste or something).

I'm pretty sure that climate change is happening, that it is man-made, that it will be worse than we expect (but not catastrophic enough to end humanity completely), and that we won't solve the issue before it occurs. Whether you think that is true or not, suspend disbelief with me for this thread and assume that you too think that it will happen and that it will lead to a breakdown in organised society. I have been thinking to myself how to prepare for such a scenario. Where would be the best place to live? (i.e. what area of the world? country or city? populated or empty? on a hill or near a river?) What life skills would be necessary to survive? What tools should one own? A few months ago I read The Road - Cormac McCarthy. It is about a post-apocalyptic world, where a father and son just try to survive in a world where the other humans have taken to capturing, killing and eating each other. Do you think that this could occur? Obviously there is some creative license in this, since no one knows what the effects of climate change would be, especially in specific areas (hotter? colder? wetter? dryer? stormier?) however please try to keep basically realistic (on the premise of: "what would happen if climate change was much worse than we thought?").

I already adressed this somewhere, there are different levels of cognitive ability for a full developed sample from a species. I judge animals to be at a lower level then humans, so as long as they are being used for food or some better purpose I dont see anything morally wrong with killing them. Obviously, you can say aliens would take this point of view, but it should be clear that humans are a level above any other animal on earth. But you obviously accept that there is a gradient, and it is not just a case of humans = good, other animals = bad. I was arguing against Sly_Wizard's view that the foetus is suddenly extremely valuable at the point of conception. I am in agreement with you that there is a fuzzy line, where science has to take many considerations into account, such as the presence of brainwaves as you mention.

First and foremost, lose the word "host" as that implies a parasitic relationship, of which none occurs. Anywho, the point which you so callously glossed over (Or maybe flat out missed) is that as a fetus is as "reliant" on its mother for sustenance as a newborn is "reliant" on others for its sustenance as neither can provide for itself as they both lack the capabilities to do so. Therefore, you cannot make a meaningful distinction between the two in regards to "the ability to survive on its own", as you're not talking about "the ability to survive on its own", but the ability to live outside of the womb on its own. In, which case, you just picked an arbitrary developmental stage of which to be the deciding factor in whether abortion is legal or not. If the woman doesn't want the baby, it is a parasite to her. Once again, organisms have a natural predisposition to members of their own species. It's really no more complicated than that. ...And going by your criteria regarding what makes life "sacred", I sure do hope you're a vegetarian. Of course, my argument had nothing to do with animals being cognitive or whatnot-- That was your argument. I was merely pointing out that, going by your own criteria, you should be against the killing of animals but okay with infanticide. ??? Yeah, you're going to have to explain this one to me. And, once again, I must state/ask/say, "I hope you're a vegetarian?" because, if not, then your stance is rather hypocritical. I didn't want to go there, but I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law. The problem with this train of thought is that it can be used to rationalize the mass extermination of groups which are considered to be "inferior" or "worthless", as it has been before. The criteria by which you relegate a fetus to having "limited intrinsic worth" is highly arbitrary, which I'm sure you know, which is why I'm sure you said it in the first place. The problem with that train of thought is that the only way you'll be wrong is if you admit you're wrong. Otherwise, you'll always consider yourself to be right. And if you consider yourself to be right, then there's no problems in any of your actions. This was my point many pages ago, I hope that people who are against abortion are also vegetarians because animals have much of what makes human life important and valuable. You, however, don't care about life for its intrinsic value, you just care about humans for no other reason than because you are one. It's not "natural" to only care about one's own species, and even if it was "natural", that's not an argument. Morality doesn't come from nature. Nature is amoral, it just is as it is, shaped by the processes that acted upon it. The criteria is arbitrary because there aren't any reasonable criteria to use which are not arbitrary. Nevertheless, people know that what the Nazis did was horrible, not because it broke your rule about killing anything human, but because they recognise that exterminating groups who clearly have self-awareness, can feel pain, etc.etc.etc. is wrong. Ask anyone why killing the Jews was wrong, and they won't say "because they are of the same species as me", they'll say something like "because they were people with hopes and dreams just like me". A subtle difference. The second one gives a reason why their lives have value, the first just uses an in-group vs. out-group distinction. Put it another way, if you had to argue why you shouldn't be killed, you wouldn't just say "because I'm a human and so are you". You'd give reasons why your life has value. Or another scenario is what happens if a superior alien race come to earth - would they be right to start killing humans just because they're not one? Or would we like them to take into account the fact that we have some value as organisms that want to continue living?

Irrelevant. Stages of development are just that-- Stages of development. If you take a newborn and throw him/her outside, it'll die because it cannot fend for itself. Does that mean it has less of a right to live than someone who is forty and can take care of him/herself? I doubt it. Of course, this is the exact argument you use. I said it was one of many factors to be taken into account. There is a difference between a baby that cannot fend for itself, and a foetus that if separated from its host would cease to exist even if given the best medical care possible. Also irrelevant, since we're speaking of humans. It is part of my argument about how humans are part of the animal kingdom, not set apart. You have a strange mental dividing line between humans and animals, as if we have not evolved. We apparently have a fundamental disagreement about what is sacred about life. You say that humans are sacred, because they're humans. I say that life is sacred for other reasons. And, yet again, also irrelevant as, by your logic, you have no choice but to agree with infanticide. I said it was one of many factors to be taken into account. Infants can feel pain. Yes, because we all know just how many abortions are performed due to the mother's life being at risk. I said that it was one of many factors to be taken into account. Once again, no. The word "complexity" holds no meaning. Considering the fact that, in many instances, animals display far greater cognitive abilities than humans do and can, it'd be faulty to assume that just because you're a human you're the epitome of the proverbial evolutionary ladder (That is, being "more intelligent" than your animal counterparts). I find it interesting that I have been the one arguing that you are hypocritical for not caring about dead animals but caring deeply about dead foetuses, and now you are the one arguing that animals are more cognitively able (but you're still happy to kill them). We apparently fundamentally disagree on what makes life special. Again, I repeat, you just say that humans are sacred because they're humans. The only thing that fundamentally separates humans completely from other animals is that we as a species can interbreed. Why you'd care deeply about that, I don't understand. (it's a bit like someone asking what's important about America, and you saying "it has Americans in it" - I assume you are American, I apologise otherwise) I care about taking life that is self-aware, that is intelligent, that would feel pain at being killed - it doesn't matter what species it is. You care about the human species for the sake of it. This is why, for me, a foetus is just cells with limited intrinsic worth, at conception less developed than a bacteria.

Of course, one cell or a gazillion cells, it doesn't matter. Human life is human life. I mean, if we're going to play this game, then just how many cells must someone be comprised of for you to consider it "murder". It's a tricky and subtle question - one where lots of factors have to be taken into account such as whether it would survive on its own, what species it is, how "complex" it is in terms of cognitive factors (self-awareness, can it feel pain, etc.), what damage it would do to the "host" if it survived. These factors are what current abortion law acknowledges. I don't know American law as there are lots of laws in different states, but in the UK I believe the deadline is around 26 weeks, after which it is too late for an abortion other than in exceptional circumstances. I do not think that "human life is human life" as you do. Humans are one of the animals, not set apart just because we are human. We are not sacred. What does separate us is complexity - and this is something that foetuses don't have.

Nope. Sperm are simple haploid cells, unable to grow or propagate themselves through any means. Left alone, a sperm cell will forever be a sperm cell. So, sperm meets egg, BAM. Completely untouchable. The woman can go ahead and kill chimps and dolphins, but that's nothing compared to disturbing that cell which is murder and she (and/or the doctor) deserves to be locked up. Don't agree with you.

No. The answer is because it's human, and all creatures are partial to members of their own species. Anywho, the bolded part is just stupid. Dolphins are incredibly intelligent creatures, yet people eat them. The next thing you're going to tell me is that because humans eat dolphins, that we should also be allowed to eat any human which shows less "complexity" (Whatever that means) than your average dolphin. ...And what in the blue hell does it mean to be a "under-developed group of cells"? The answer? Nothing. It's merely a way to try to devalue a fetus. Whoever came up with that term should be shot dead because it's inane and doesn't mean anything. So "every sperm is sacred"? (since they also have the potential to be human, like a foetus) Personally I cannot see how you can reconcile killing dolphins for food being OK with killing a foetus that has been through, say, 12 weeks of development, being murder. The foetus will know nothing about it. It won't feel pain. It certainly doesn't know that it exists.

I think that you'd benefit from accepting that you will never forget, and that you will never be able to just live in the moment because that's not how your mind works, and so trying to will just leave you dissatisfied. "Lateralus" ( :P ), I also love that comic!

lobsta quoted Dawkins (as well as another author), and then you assumed that he follows his word as law instead of arguing why Dawkins was wrong... ...Then you went on to insult Dawkins, and incorrectly assume that he despises everyone. Why is it that you assume that someone who disagrees with your religious beliefs necessarily despises you? If someone disagreed with your opinion about a painting, would you assume they are an enemy? People disagree with your belief, not with you - it's only you that internalises that belief and makes it so that your belief = yourself. This reasoning is what Dawkins is talking about when he says that religious people expect undue "respect" for their beliefs. Well, lobsta may say that he respects your beliefs, but I don't have any respect at all. Why should I care what you believe if you don't have a good reason for believing it - especially if it affects my life (which it does at least indirectly)? I do, however, respect you as a person with your own opinions, even if I would argue against them. The moral voice in my head is my own feelings and thoughts. It is comforting to me because it means that I can rely on myself to have a view on right and wrong. It is empowering, because it means that I don't have to rely on anyone else to tell me what to do (although I can listen to their opinions and potentially change my views - something that the religious zealot cannot do). It is also beautiful, because it evolved in me but not in the millions of other species that exist on this planet. And now you'll be tempted to call me an atheist preacher. But this is another religious mistake. They assume that because people are rational, they cannot see beauty in their world view - they cannot "live life with a sense of joy and wonder". But that's not the case at all. Not only is the world beautiful, but the (non-divine) processes that have combined to bring it about are also beautiful. And what's great for the person with a world view based on reason, is that we have the benefit of fact behind us - like watching a film that you know is based on a true story rather than a work of fiction, we can check and see that the beauty is real.

duh, a baby starts as a one cell mass so clearly at some point it has less cells then a fly I call strawman on that argument also. Human life>any other known creature life>0 I think that this is another reasoning failure stemming from religion. Why is a human life worth more than any other known creature? Because it is more complex, has more experiences, is self-aware, etc. But foetuses aren't any of these. It is possible to compare a foetus to an animal because evolution tells us that humans aren't "special" and ordained by God - we're just animals. So foetuses aren't sacred - they're just under-developed groups of cells with fewer cognitive abilities and less complexity than animals that we breed, kill, and eat every day.

I completely agree with you. I also don't understand certain atheists' obsession with changing their label. I understand that atheism might have a negative connotation, but some of the claims to change it are outright ridiculous. This is why I see labels as ultimately pointless. Saying you're an atheist doesn't do your beliefs justice, but neither does saying that you're a Christian. You have a simplistic and basic label not for something to identify with, but so people get a taste until you delve into your true beliefs through conversation. Labels, religious labels, sexual identity labels, whether you be homosexual, straight, bisexual, it's all a silly attempt at trying to say that you're different than other people, when you should be celebrating your innate characteristics as human beings. That's not to say we shouldn't recognize differences, in that a completely monotone society would be abhorrent, but people try and identify with labels far too much. Because stereotypes and labels are important. People don't have time or energy to converse with everyone. Brands know this (but no one expects people to learn more about Apple than their brand of "creative", "innovative" and "cool"). Unfortunately the atheism "brand" has negative connotations. So did homosexuality, but they managed to take over the word "gay" (which was a positive word). That's what the atheists tried to do with "bright". I don't think that it was the right word to choose, since calling yourself bright sounds like you're showing off, whereas "gay" just meant that you were happy.

I have my fingers crossed for your dog.

But then, the evolution of intelligence is still part of natural selection - our intelligence allows us to stay one step ahead of the diseases. In the end there is no "perfect being" in evolution. You're either alive or you're not. Also, someone said that evolution should get rid of stupid people. In a sense it has. Even the stupidest people are far more intelligent than the rest of the animals. For the OP, you will want to look up evolutionary psychology (one can start at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology ). Basically it boils down to things that posters have already said. Bravery might help you survive, and it might help you compete for a mate (women want someone who will look after their kids). Bravery might also exist because people reciprocate for one another ("if you go out of the trench first this time, I'll do it next time"). It might also survive because of culture and how we celebrate brave people, and so people emulate that. I'd say that it's also very likely that bravery would be inherited to some extent. All the personality factors I know of have an inheritance rate of about 50%.

Those who have read my diatribes in the past won't be surprised that I think that religion is a net negative to society. I define religion in this context as belief in concepts that have no proof and so require faith. So, I think that the fact that this irrational thinking ("faith") is tolerated in society and even admired, means that people become more easily led, less willing to look for evidence, and less willing to accept challenges to their thoughts. Every time someone proclaims their great faith in God, I see it as a failure of their reasoning. If they're willing to believe in God and possibly do various behaviours on that basis (pray, go without eating, only eating certain foods), then who knows what else they might decide to accept as true without good evidence (or fail to accept as true with good evidence)? The Greek philosophers were the first ones to move beyond superstition, by talking about the importance of observation and reasoning, and I think that it is tragic that the resurgence of religions have constrained further thinking for the last 2,000 years. Although sometimes this has been explicit, such as the claim that the earth is the centre of the universe and the denial of evolution, often they have done it unintentionally as it is just a result of their acceptance of superstitious reasoning (why bother to look for evidence about how the planets move in the first place if your religion already has an answer that doesn't require evidence?). I think that humans would be far further advanced if children had been brought up in an environment that encouraged reasoning rather than an environment that encouraged faith.

Perhaps, although the type of "experts" that are in magazines aren't necessarily PhDs. Often they're just some guy who just claims to be knowledgeable but has no qualifications to back it up. Really knowledgeable people probably wouldn't want to risk their reputation by answering questions in a magazine.

I've seen that page before and have referenced it elsewhere. But you seemed to miss this in the article: That states that there is a negative correlation between abortion and the fertility rate. That is, abortion lessens it. Oh, and here's something else :P Link It says that the magnitude of the effect is 2% for whites and 10% for blacks. That's not a big effect, and they also say that it's not enough to reach the replacement rate. Of course, with this kind of study the details are the most important, and we don't have those.